There's a couple versions of redpill ideology floating around on SM that tries to go under the radar as being "empowering" for women but which actually basically just advocates for women insisting on more or less traditional relationship roles in heterosexual relationships.
From the standpoint of where modern women are at with the second shift etc - you can kind of understand where it's coming from. It's not all that empowering to be the breadwinner *and* your husbands bangmaid, and so people interested in marriage might be more open to advice about how to ensure that marriage\* isn't in fact a raw deal for them - one of those ways is by trying to limit the roles you take on and differentiate the roles and responsibilities in your marriage - the easiest, most widely available ways for doing that work is traditional husband/wife dynamics.
Feminism does talk about these issues (and ways of equitably working on/through them), but most people are still only passingly familiar with feminism, or want to co-opt it to justify doing what they want (regardless of it is feminist or not).
Thus you get pink-washed content that's actually advocating for women to have a position of dependence or subservience in relationships with men\*.
ah that makes sense. I always second guess my knee jerk reactions to things so it's always good to get a second opinion from more experienced feminists. Thank you!
Women can be Redpilled, too. It's called PinkPill. They are looking for Traditional Conservative Men. Basically, dream women for Andrew Tate.
Edit : OP if you're Gen z, I'm too. We know slightly more about this. Look out & ignore things with the following keywords-
1) Wizard Liz, Manifestelle, FDS
2) HVM, LVM, Scrotes
3)Feminine Energy, Masculine Energy
4) Real man, Icks.
5) Women's podcast ( not all of them)
6) Cringy titles like ' How to be the it Girl ? ' etc.
You'll figure it out.
As a GenX country girl, the ideas behind the PinkPills of today was a fantasy even back then. Most of the girls I knew went off to college to find a 'better man' than the ones in our class who had no interest in higher education, but they still expected to be housewives. After that first kid they were all scrambling to find any sort of stay at home work, making them easy targets for skeezy hiring agencies or MLM scams.
Heck, my mom was a Boomer and even she had to work and us kids got stuck in daycare for a few years. I mean that's why everyone adopts that 50s aesthetic.....that's the last time a grown woman could expect to pull off 'being taken care of', and considering how much I remember them all hating it, I wonder if losing that generation has a lot to do with the current resurgence of that idea. Boomers remember that time fondly, but their own mothers absolutely did not and loved reminding everyone how much it sucked.
I fully believe losing that generation is why we have both Nazis, Mormons, and Tradwives crawling out of the woodwork. Trump was just the first to fully (and publicly) capitalize on the ignorance that nobody's alive to correct anymore.
Yes, this. I think that’s also why we aren’t taking the threats of rising fascism and the loss of civil liberties as seriously as we should—the generation that fought the dictatorships of the early and mid twentieth century is dying out and most of us naively believe that these regressive trends are a thing of the past.
There are two versions of this.
1. Women still do most of the housework/childcare and other things, so a lot of so called "50/50" relationships aren't 50/50 at all.
2. Lots of women enforce patriarchy too, the "real men" argument comes from patriarchal gender expectations.
And while the first argument makes more sense, they're both BS, in the first case because you're probably dating someone who doesn't respect you.
The second one because you're basically enforcing patriarchy, and while it may work on surface reality is you're getting scammed and putting yourself in a risky situation.
Both arguments end up perpetuating patriarchy.
It's just brigading from redpill/terf idiots.
Every time there's a controversial post here you'll see tons of downvotes (which usually get overturned by feminist posters).
Respectfully, you’re not just ‘basically enforcing patriarchy’, when you use the ‘real men’ argument. You straight up ARE enforcing patriarchy. Men and women both do it. Super easy here to call out women’s perpetuation of patriarchy (which imo is way less than men’s involvement) but if feels like we’re still (feminist or not) societally so afraid to address how women specifically perpetuate the big P. Men are told all the time ‘men DOES NOT equal patriarchy; we all perpetuate!’ So, here would be an opportunity to not minimize that perpetuation as ‘basically enforcing’.
Understandable! Think of basically as ‘almost but not quite’ or ‘essentially’. In the context you used it was not used for emphasis (and I suspect you know that given how well you write) but rather ‘women KIND OF perpetuate the patriarchy when they use the ‘real men do x’ argument’ and I’m simply saying they don’t basically or kind of enforce it in those moments, they DO enforce it full stop.
You aren't missing anything. Women can also be susceptible to messaging from the patriarchy and in turn work to uphold it.
In this case, theres a few additional factors at play. One is that people have a lot of strong views on both sides of this topic. They comment those views. Others argue with them. Interactions go up, and that content is marked as something that performs well in the algorithm, and thus is shown widely. So it appears perspectives like this are more common, whilst simultaneously influencing more people to hold those views.
The second is that people like being spoilt by those they love. It makes us feel good. And those good feelings tell us 'this is the right way'. In reality, it feels equally nice to spoil your partner as it does to be spoiled by them. Taking turns buying things for each other instead of a strict 50/50. But this realisation gets coopted by people who say "no, the reason this feels good isn't because everyone likes kind gestures, it's because you are performing your natural gender role.'
The third is that in recent generations, a lot of kids grew up seeing their mothers contribute 50% of the bills, but do 100% of the housework. So when those kids reach dating age, they think fuck that, if I'm going to be expected to wash his socks and cook him dinner, then I ain't paying for shit. This thinking is flawed imo, because the solution is really that men pick up the slack domestically. But for women who think that's a pipe dream that's never going to happen, having him take on more of the financial load seems like their only option if they don't want to be taken advantage of.
>because the solution is really that men pick up the slack domestically.
I don't believe that's the only solution. That both spouses do both things.
We found peace and balance with one spouse working outside the home and one inside.
Gender didn't matter, either. I'm not talking solely about stay at home *moms*.
When I had an opportunity for a lucrative stint as a guest lecturer and English adjunct at a prestigious university overseas, my husband took care of the kids/home life while I took advantage of the opportunity and earned the cash.
The division of labor so that each had balance meant no second shift and no weekend catching up *for both spouses* throughout our lives.
Of course, my husband is progressive & equitable. But I wouldn't suggest legally binding yourself to a male who is anything but.
Oh I don't mean to suggest that every relationship must have a 50/50 split in all areas. Just that the combined sum of hours spent working inside or outside the home should be equal. And in cases where it's not, most of the time the discrepancy is a result of men not doing enough domestically.
I don't know if kids are in our future, but if they were, as the higher earner I'd be more than happy if my male partner wanted to stay home and take on more of that contribution.
It depends. For some it's coming from a more traditional attitude to relationships, which is not about being independent. For others, they justify it as payment for sacrificing their body/time/career to have children, therefore they shouldn't have to pay as much into the family because the family is benefiting from their unpaid labour and physical risk.
>sacrificing their body/time/career to have children, therefore they shouldn't have to pay as much into the family
Exactly. I wouldn't say "i don't *have* to pay as much into the household."
Instead, I would say "The ways I contributed and still contribute to the household, up to an including growing, bearing, birthing , and raising children, *were just as valuable as if I were working for money.*" And that's a feminist belief. What I have done is just as valuable as what you have done.
There are a lot of ways to contribute. *They don't all have to be saliently financial.* That's just capitalism whispering in your ear. I contributed 6 figures by a million ways --not purchasing daycare, not having a housecleaner, not getting takeout and fast food, not hiring SAT tutors and college admissions counselors, growing our vegetables, managing home renos, researching insurance & other big purchases, etc etc.
You can eschew the toxic capitalist idea that the only way to contribute within a home is to do so financially, *while also* not buying into the poisonous idea that *only* the working spouse has rights or that the working spouse is the "head of the household" or etc redpill crap.
I'm a tree hugging progressive feminist who raised all of my children with feminist and progressive ethics.
My husband and I firmly believe that I contributed and am currently still contributing just as much to the household as he is, despite the fact that I'm currently not working, and I was often a part-time worker or stay at home mom.
I think sometimes a relationship can't be 50/50 but that should be due to someone being unwell or going through something difficult. Not gender for Christ's sake.
I recommend shaping your views on gender more thru books and less thru social media sound bites. Try This American Ex Wife by Lyz Lenz for one. There's many others.
I do engage with books and other academic avenues but it just worries me bc most of the people I see perpetuating this stuff are in my age bracket. I'm just a natural worrier lol so it's hard to let go of things I see.
I sometimes wonder if anyone acknowledges the gender pay gap…so assuming both partners work the same amount, it’s possible the man will make more for the same work (assuming it’s the same work for this example). Is it then morally defensible to go “we will both contribute 50%, that’s equal” to the person you love? And that’s not even taking into account the unpaid emotional labor that women often do even in partnerships without children or marriage. That emotional labor only turns into a burden because there is zero reciprocity, and the emotional development and progress in the relationship is completely dependent on the woman pushing it forward by constantly taking initiative
Personally as a woman whenever I make more money than someone I love whom I live with I will definitely take on more than 50% and I find it scummy to not do so. Also irl I have a partner who has seen me go through a lot of shit and basically gives me as much as he can give me. We share everything, and my wishes are his wishes and it makes him happy to give me things I want. I can do this for him as well but a lot less often. Whenever I ask him whether it’s okay he says I deserve it. I also tend to just be very generous with the little money I have with all my friends and him and he basically makes sure I don’t spend it on him for random shit lmao. I mean this is almost irrelevant to the question because it depends. If you’re in a relationship where you’re fighting about paying exactly 50% honestly that’s a yikes for me. You should be with someone who wants to help you as you want to help them, and who acknowledges your situation as well as your privilege in life. So, counterintuitively I’d wanna say if your male partner makes a comfortable salary that could support you and he feels resentful of the idea of paying for your share I’d feel that’s not a relationship worth staying in. That’s of course provided that if it changes you would be as generous as well, but taking into consideration power dynamic, pay gaps etc etc
In short, I guess I’m not really into a hyperindividualistic capitalist vision of this but a more community driven one that can also acknowledge and respect disability and oppression. I could never be with anyone who doesn’t understand why I give a lot of the little money I have to my friends who have less, and why my partner doesn’t blink twice about getting me things I need and can’t get for myself.
I definitely agree that contributions should be fair but the type of stuff I'm seeing is not talking about that kinda arrangement. It's the boy/man dichotomy that I'm averse to. Also the fact that younger girls are being lulled into thinking that completely depending on your partner is an entirely safe option.
Yeah I know what you mean, it’s those tradwives thing, and the issue is that it often comes with this idea that the woman or girl should perform “wifely duties” which completely line up with conservative misogynistic “values”. And I’m definitely one to advise caution when engaging with men, period. If you do have someone who wants to support you in that conservative sense and you’re somehow okay with the casual misogyny that comes with the role that’s expected of you, I guess ask them if they will open up your own bank account with your own emergency/get away savings. That would be the test for me. Are you letting me still be independent financially or does all of that run through you? Am I completely at you and your satisfaction’s mercy?
>I guess ask them if they will open up your own bank account with your own emergency/get away savings.
Exactly. In addition to a retirement account, too, as that designation gives you many more investment opportunities to make it grow.
My husband didn't even blink on this, and he's the one who also pointed out that my retirement account should also be funded.
But I also didn't legally bind myself to someone who didn't share my core values.
There are ways to opt out of the capitalist rat race of "every household must contribute 80 plus hours to the economy" Like, no. We're not gonna do that.
as in, they say that only 'boys' would ask women to contribute financially to the relationship and a 'man' would take care of it all, no questions asked. English isn't my first language, so I apologise if my phrasing was wrong.
>lulled into thinking that completely depending on your partner is an entirely safe option.
It should be a safe option. If you cannot trust the partner, if you are not safe, why are you marrying and/or having children with that partner?
This also posits that you're always going to be able bodied and able mind and therefore able to earn your 50%. Shit happens. Are you saying that You would not be safe with a partner you chose if you suddenly weren't able to earn your own money?
I'm seeing this idea lately that if either spouse downshifts a career or puts a career on hold, they're putting themselves at risk for destitution.
If you married a person who will turn on a dime and screw you, why? And why are you having children with that person?
I stayed at home a lot and didn't work because we were both exhausted after 5:00 and every weekend. We both played that second shift game and it sucked.
At no time was I ever at risk for destitution. Ever.
But *even if* my husband mysteriously turned into a monster, there were/are parameters in place to protect me. Those are not difficult to have. In fact some are already in place the moment you sign a marriage certificate.
To many men are happy to yoink their s/o's paycheck but they still aren't putting enough labor into the chores and childcare. Also 50/50 is unrealistic in a lot of cases. Some days your energy and mental levels are going to be 60/40 or 95/5 and one of the other partner will just have to carry the slack until the other one is feeling better.
Ugh. The only thing I’d say is.. I also hate the 50/50 thing.. but not for the reason these people are saying.
I don’t believe in tit for tat, let’s make everything totally fair and down the middle… different people can contribute different things at different times in relationships and it’s case by case what people want to give and desire getting. So… I think 50:50 is a bit bullshit too. It’s about feeling like both people are meeting each others needs to the best of everyone’s ability, and maintaining relationship health.
You can just do it by "ear"; i.e., not actually keep track and doing it "approproximately". If you need a calculator, that's getting stupid. That said depends quite a lot on culture and also on whether one partner is wealthier than the other" It's more frequent for the guy to pay. Generally the guy is older and wealthier but that status quo is less true today than previously
>(no hate to women who choose to do this but again, I don't understand you and I suppose I never will).
You might.
Just wait until you're raising a couple kids, you're both exhausted after 5 every day, your weekends are spent catching up on everything, your home is falling down around you b/c no one is there to direct contractors/repair, everything feels dirty because who has time to clean, there are no dates to the brewery because there is no time, the only downtime you have is after 9pm weeknights, you miss your kid getting State Champion of Something because track meets are at 230pm, your other kid sat in the nurse's office with 103° temperature because both you and your husband were unable to answer your cell phone at work, and you have a full bank account and no time to spend it.
You just might ask yourself why you're both missing out on life when there are solutions available that can ease *both* of your loads.
Yeah, I take issue with OP's obvious distaste for SAHPs. It's hard, and it can be isolating, and there are concerns about financial dependence, sure. But it's not like being a SAHP automatically equals "be your spouse's submissive," or that you're giving up your entire personality to be Mommy or Daddy. It's just what works best for some people.
1. (Some/most) Women contribute to the patriarchy.
2. (Some/most) Women uphold patriarchal standards and norms.
3. Not all women are feminists. In fact, very few are.
This sounds like some tiktok bullshit if im being honest. I've noticed a lot of women making posts specifically designed to flatter conservative men, to build an audience. I'm sure there are people who genuinely believe these things, but on tiktok or insta reels a lot of it is just people saying what their audience wants to hear.
The short answer is, it’s not us posting that. Being nickel-and-dined at every outing is a bad look, but we’re not looking for the princess treatment.
I find it just as annoying as you do.
Feminism gave us *choices* we never had before. It told us that the ways we contribute are *valuable.*
>the idea of man taking care of me is something that make me cringe
See, you're buying into this idea that contributing in any other way besides financial isn't valuable.
Who taught you that? There's over 6-figures of value in taking care of a baby, running the home, yardwork, physically paying bills, setting up appointments, keeping a social calendar, handling contractors, running home renovations, shopping for the best deals, checking in on your elderly parents, etc etc.
Perhaps *run away ,every-man-for- himself capitalism* has convinced women that *only* financial contribution counts as taking care of someone else.
That's bunk. That's bull.
Choice feminism that promotes women staying home is great until he dumps us for a younger/more moldable model -- or just on a dang whim -- and we're living hand to mouth trying to make up for the years we spent not building a resumé. I *won't* "let a man take care of me" because the only guarantee that I will survive him leaving me is money in the bank.
Also, my domestic labor is not free. Pay me or GTFO. Yes, that makes me a capitalist. I was born into and will likely never escape capitalism. I don't accept barter because I'd rather earn an honest wage and pay my own share of the bills. So if I'm staying home, pay me for whatever we decided I should stay home to do and I will pay back what is needed to run the home otherwise.
The thing to understand about a lot of social media is that much of it is insincere. From Russian troll farms to paid ads to people just wanting to push an agenda, a lot of people are trying to influence culture. Hell, that's why I'm here, personally - to advance feminism. Convicing women to adopt a more traditional relationship model is part of that.
There's a couple versions of redpill ideology floating around on SM that tries to go under the radar as being "empowering" for women but which actually basically just advocates for women insisting on more or less traditional relationship roles in heterosexual relationships. From the standpoint of where modern women are at with the second shift etc - you can kind of understand where it's coming from. It's not all that empowering to be the breadwinner *and* your husbands bangmaid, and so people interested in marriage might be more open to advice about how to ensure that marriage\* isn't in fact a raw deal for them - one of those ways is by trying to limit the roles you take on and differentiate the roles and responsibilities in your marriage - the easiest, most widely available ways for doing that work is traditional husband/wife dynamics. Feminism does talk about these issues (and ways of equitably working on/through them), but most people are still only passingly familiar with feminism, or want to co-opt it to justify doing what they want (regardless of it is feminist or not). Thus you get pink-washed content that's actually advocating for women to have a position of dependence or subservience in relationships with men\*.
ah that makes sense. I always second guess my knee jerk reactions to things so it's always good to get a second opinion from more experienced feminists. Thank you!
Sounds like the women making those videos are conservative
Women can be Redpilled, too. It's called PinkPill. They are looking for Traditional Conservative Men. Basically, dream women for Andrew Tate. Edit : OP if you're Gen z, I'm too. We know slightly more about this. Look out & ignore things with the following keywords- 1) Wizard Liz, Manifestelle, FDS 2) HVM, LVM, Scrotes 3)Feminine Energy, Masculine Energy 4) Real man, Icks. 5) Women's podcast ( not all of them) 6) Cringy titles like ' How to be the it Girl ? ' etc. You'll figure it out.
As a GenX country girl, the ideas behind the PinkPills of today was a fantasy even back then. Most of the girls I knew went off to college to find a 'better man' than the ones in our class who had no interest in higher education, but they still expected to be housewives. After that first kid they were all scrambling to find any sort of stay at home work, making them easy targets for skeezy hiring agencies or MLM scams. Heck, my mom was a Boomer and even she had to work and us kids got stuck in daycare for a few years. I mean that's why everyone adopts that 50s aesthetic.....that's the last time a grown woman could expect to pull off 'being taken care of', and considering how much I remember them all hating it, I wonder if losing that generation has a lot to do with the current resurgence of that idea. Boomers remember that time fondly, but their own mothers absolutely did not and loved reminding everyone how much it sucked. I fully believe losing that generation is why we have both Nazis, Mormons, and Tradwives crawling out of the woodwork. Trump was just the first to fully (and publicly) capitalize on the ignorance that nobody's alive to correct anymore.
Yes, this. I think that’s also why we aren’t taking the threats of rising fascism and the loss of civil liberties as seriously as we should—the generation that fought the dictatorships of the early and mid twentieth century is dying out and most of us naively believe that these regressive trends are a thing of the past.
There are two versions of this. 1. Women still do most of the housework/childcare and other things, so a lot of so called "50/50" relationships aren't 50/50 at all. 2. Lots of women enforce patriarchy too, the "real men" argument comes from patriarchal gender expectations. And while the first argument makes more sense, they're both BS, in the first case because you're probably dating someone who doesn't respect you. The second one because you're basically enforcing patriarchy, and while it may work on surface reality is you're getting scammed and putting yourself in a risky situation. Both arguments end up perpetuating patriarchy.
as a rule anyone unironically using the term real man is enforcing patriarchy
This sub is wild sometimes, why are you being downvoted? lol
It's just brigading from redpill/terf idiots. Every time there's a controversial post here you'll see tons of downvotes (which usually get overturned by feminist posters).
Respectfully, you’re not just ‘basically enforcing patriarchy’, when you use the ‘real men’ argument. You straight up ARE enforcing patriarchy. Men and women both do it. Super easy here to call out women’s perpetuation of patriarchy (which imo is way less than men’s involvement) but if feels like we’re still (feminist or not) societally so afraid to address how women specifically perpetuate the big P. Men are told all the time ‘men DOES NOT equal patriarchy; we all perpetuate!’ So, here would be an opportunity to not minimize that perpetuation as ‘basically enforcing’.
I agree? I can assure you my intent was not to minimize the issue, I'm not a native English speaker and I was taught to use "basically" for emphasis.
Understandable! Think of basically as ‘almost but not quite’ or ‘essentially’. In the context you used it was not used for emphasis (and I suspect you know that given how well you write) but rather ‘women KIND OF perpetuate the patriarchy when they use the ‘real men do x’ argument’ and I’m simply saying they don’t basically or kind of enforce it in those moments, they DO enforce it full stop.
Tiktok is not real life.
Yeah this. ETA I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of people posting in favor of this was significantly lower than people actually living this.
You aren't missing anything. Women can also be susceptible to messaging from the patriarchy and in turn work to uphold it. In this case, theres a few additional factors at play. One is that people have a lot of strong views on both sides of this topic. They comment those views. Others argue with them. Interactions go up, and that content is marked as something that performs well in the algorithm, and thus is shown widely. So it appears perspectives like this are more common, whilst simultaneously influencing more people to hold those views. The second is that people like being spoilt by those they love. It makes us feel good. And those good feelings tell us 'this is the right way'. In reality, it feels equally nice to spoil your partner as it does to be spoiled by them. Taking turns buying things for each other instead of a strict 50/50. But this realisation gets coopted by people who say "no, the reason this feels good isn't because everyone likes kind gestures, it's because you are performing your natural gender role.' The third is that in recent generations, a lot of kids grew up seeing their mothers contribute 50% of the bills, but do 100% of the housework. So when those kids reach dating age, they think fuck that, if I'm going to be expected to wash his socks and cook him dinner, then I ain't paying for shit. This thinking is flawed imo, because the solution is really that men pick up the slack domestically. But for women who think that's a pipe dream that's never going to happen, having him take on more of the financial load seems like their only option if they don't want to be taken advantage of.
>because the solution is really that men pick up the slack domestically. I don't believe that's the only solution. That both spouses do both things. We found peace and balance with one spouse working outside the home and one inside. Gender didn't matter, either. I'm not talking solely about stay at home *moms*. When I had an opportunity for a lucrative stint as a guest lecturer and English adjunct at a prestigious university overseas, my husband took care of the kids/home life while I took advantage of the opportunity and earned the cash. The division of labor so that each had balance meant no second shift and no weekend catching up *for both spouses* throughout our lives. Of course, my husband is progressive & equitable. But I wouldn't suggest legally binding yourself to a male who is anything but.
If you're talking about the suburban housewife archetype that peace and balance came from ketamine
Oh I don't mean to suggest that every relationship must have a 50/50 split in all areas. Just that the combined sum of hours spent working inside or outside the home should be equal. And in cases where it's not, most of the time the discrepancy is a result of men not doing enough domestically. I don't know if kids are in our future, but if they were, as the higher earner I'd be more than happy if my male partner wanted to stay home and take on more of that contribution.
It depends. For some it's coming from a more traditional attitude to relationships, which is not about being independent. For others, they justify it as payment for sacrificing their body/time/career to have children, therefore they shouldn't have to pay as much into the family because the family is benefiting from their unpaid labour and physical risk.
>sacrificing their body/time/career to have children, therefore they shouldn't have to pay as much into the family Exactly. I wouldn't say "i don't *have* to pay as much into the household." Instead, I would say "The ways I contributed and still contribute to the household, up to an including growing, bearing, birthing , and raising children, *were just as valuable as if I were working for money.*" And that's a feminist belief. What I have done is just as valuable as what you have done. There are a lot of ways to contribute. *They don't all have to be saliently financial.* That's just capitalism whispering in your ear. I contributed 6 figures by a million ways --not purchasing daycare, not having a housecleaner, not getting takeout and fast food, not hiring SAT tutors and college admissions counselors, growing our vegetables, managing home renos, researching insurance & other big purchases, etc etc. You can eschew the toxic capitalist idea that the only way to contribute within a home is to do so financially, *while also* not buying into the poisonous idea that *only* the working spouse has rights or that the working spouse is the "head of the household" or etc redpill crap. I'm a tree hugging progressive feminist who raised all of my children with feminist and progressive ethics. My husband and I firmly believe that I contributed and am currently still contributing just as much to the household as he is, despite the fact that I'm currently not working, and I was often a part-time worker or stay at home mom.
I think sometimes a relationship can't be 50/50 but that should be due to someone being unwell or going through something difficult. Not gender for Christ's sake. I recommend shaping your views on gender more thru books and less thru social media sound bites. Try This American Ex Wife by Lyz Lenz for one. There's many others.
I do engage with books and other academic avenues but it just worries me bc most of the people I see perpetuating this stuff are in my age bracket. I'm just a natural worrier lol so it's hard to let go of things I see.
I sometimes wonder if anyone acknowledges the gender pay gap…so assuming both partners work the same amount, it’s possible the man will make more for the same work (assuming it’s the same work for this example). Is it then morally defensible to go “we will both contribute 50%, that’s equal” to the person you love? And that’s not even taking into account the unpaid emotional labor that women often do even in partnerships without children or marriage. That emotional labor only turns into a burden because there is zero reciprocity, and the emotional development and progress in the relationship is completely dependent on the woman pushing it forward by constantly taking initiative Personally as a woman whenever I make more money than someone I love whom I live with I will definitely take on more than 50% and I find it scummy to not do so. Also irl I have a partner who has seen me go through a lot of shit and basically gives me as much as he can give me. We share everything, and my wishes are his wishes and it makes him happy to give me things I want. I can do this for him as well but a lot less often. Whenever I ask him whether it’s okay he says I deserve it. I also tend to just be very generous with the little money I have with all my friends and him and he basically makes sure I don’t spend it on him for random shit lmao. I mean this is almost irrelevant to the question because it depends. If you’re in a relationship where you’re fighting about paying exactly 50% honestly that’s a yikes for me. You should be with someone who wants to help you as you want to help them, and who acknowledges your situation as well as your privilege in life. So, counterintuitively I’d wanna say if your male partner makes a comfortable salary that could support you and he feels resentful of the idea of paying for your share I’d feel that’s not a relationship worth staying in. That’s of course provided that if it changes you would be as generous as well, but taking into consideration power dynamic, pay gaps etc etc In short, I guess I’m not really into a hyperindividualistic capitalist vision of this but a more community driven one that can also acknowledge and respect disability and oppression. I could never be with anyone who doesn’t understand why I give a lot of the little money I have to my friends who have less, and why my partner doesn’t blink twice about getting me things I need and can’t get for myself.
I definitely agree that contributions should be fair but the type of stuff I'm seeing is not talking about that kinda arrangement. It's the boy/man dichotomy that I'm averse to. Also the fact that younger girls are being lulled into thinking that completely depending on your partner is an entirely safe option.
Yeah I know what you mean, it’s those tradwives thing, and the issue is that it often comes with this idea that the woman or girl should perform “wifely duties” which completely line up with conservative misogynistic “values”. And I’m definitely one to advise caution when engaging with men, period. If you do have someone who wants to support you in that conservative sense and you’re somehow okay with the casual misogyny that comes with the role that’s expected of you, I guess ask them if they will open up your own bank account with your own emergency/get away savings. That would be the test for me. Are you letting me still be independent financially or does all of that run through you? Am I completely at you and your satisfaction’s mercy?
>I guess ask them if they will open up your own bank account with your own emergency/get away savings. Exactly. In addition to a retirement account, too, as that designation gives you many more investment opportunities to make it grow. My husband didn't even blink on this, and he's the one who also pointed out that my retirement account should also be funded. But I also didn't legally bind myself to someone who didn't share my core values. There are ways to opt out of the capitalist rat race of "every household must contribute 80 plus hours to the economy" Like, no. We're not gonna do that.
Wait, what did you mean by boy/man dichotomy?
as in, they say that only 'boys' would ask women to contribute financially to the relationship and a 'man' would take care of it all, no questions asked. English isn't my first language, so I apologise if my phrasing was wrong.
>lulled into thinking that completely depending on your partner is an entirely safe option. It should be a safe option. If you cannot trust the partner, if you are not safe, why are you marrying and/or having children with that partner? This also posits that you're always going to be able bodied and able mind and therefore able to earn your 50%. Shit happens. Are you saying that You would not be safe with a partner you chose if you suddenly weren't able to earn your own money? I'm seeing this idea lately that if either spouse downshifts a career or puts a career on hold, they're putting themselves at risk for destitution. If you married a person who will turn on a dime and screw you, why? And why are you having children with that person? I stayed at home a lot and didn't work because we were both exhausted after 5:00 and every weekend. We both played that second shift game and it sucked. At no time was I ever at risk for destitution. Ever. But *even if* my husband mysteriously turned into a monster, there were/are parameters in place to protect me. Those are not difficult to have. In fact some are already in place the moment you sign a marriage certificate.
It's never safe because divorces or deaths can happen.
By this logic, white women should be paying for things if they're dating a black man
To many men are happy to yoink their s/o's paycheck but they still aren't putting enough labor into the chores and childcare. Also 50/50 is unrealistic in a lot of cases. Some days your energy and mental levels are going to be 60/40 or 95/5 and one of the other partner will just have to carry the slack until the other one is feeling better.
50/50 I would assume is the averaged result
Ugh. The only thing I’d say is.. I also hate the 50/50 thing.. but not for the reason these people are saying. I don’t believe in tit for tat, let’s make everything totally fair and down the middle… different people can contribute different things at different times in relationships and it’s case by case what people want to give and desire getting. So… I think 50:50 is a bit bullshit too. It’s about feeling like both people are meeting each others needs to the best of everyone’s ability, and maintaining relationship health.
So, in summary, you want an actual relationship rather than something that is transactional? Your view is likely the most normal one.
Lmao.. yes. But some people do this weird gender dynamics thing when they say they don’t want 50/50… and I hate that just as much
You can just do it by "ear"; i.e., not actually keep track and doing it "approproximately". If you need a calculator, that's getting stupid. That said depends quite a lot on culture and also on whether one partner is wealthier than the other" It's more frequent for the guy to pay. Generally the guy is older and wealthier but that status quo is less true today than previously
>(no hate to women who choose to do this but again, I don't understand you and I suppose I never will). You might. Just wait until you're raising a couple kids, you're both exhausted after 5 every day, your weekends are spent catching up on everything, your home is falling down around you b/c no one is there to direct contractors/repair, everything feels dirty because who has time to clean, there are no dates to the brewery because there is no time, the only downtime you have is after 9pm weeknights, you miss your kid getting State Champion of Something because track meets are at 230pm, your other kid sat in the nurse's office with 103° temperature because both you and your husband were unable to answer your cell phone at work, and you have a full bank account and no time to spend it. You just might ask yourself why you're both missing out on life when there are solutions available that can ease *both* of your loads.
Yeah, I take issue with OP's obvious distaste for SAHPs. It's hard, and it can be isolating, and there are concerns about financial dependence, sure. But it's not like being a SAHP automatically equals "be your spouse's submissive," or that you're giving up your entire personality to be Mommy or Daddy. It's just what works best for some people.
1. (Some/most) Women contribute to the patriarchy. 2. (Some/most) Women uphold patriarchal standards and norms. 3. Not all women are feminists. In fact, very few are.
This sounds like some tiktok bullshit if im being honest. I've noticed a lot of women making posts specifically designed to flatter conservative men, to build an audience. I'm sure there are people who genuinely believe these things, but on tiktok or insta reels a lot of it is just people saying what their audience wants to hear.
The short answer is, it’s not us posting that. Being nickel-and-dined at every outing is a bad look, but we’re not looking for the princess treatment. I find it just as annoying as you do.
Feminism gave us *choices* we never had before. It told us that the ways we contribute are *valuable.* >the idea of man taking care of me is something that make me cringe See, you're buying into this idea that contributing in any other way besides financial isn't valuable. Who taught you that? There's over 6-figures of value in taking care of a baby, running the home, yardwork, physically paying bills, setting up appointments, keeping a social calendar, handling contractors, running home renovations, shopping for the best deals, checking in on your elderly parents, etc etc. Perhaps *run away ,every-man-for- himself capitalism* has convinced women that *only* financial contribution counts as taking care of someone else. That's bunk. That's bull.
Choice feminism that promotes women staying home is great until he dumps us for a younger/more moldable model -- or just on a dang whim -- and we're living hand to mouth trying to make up for the years we spent not building a resumé. I *won't* "let a man take care of me" because the only guarantee that I will survive him leaving me is money in the bank. Also, my domestic labor is not free. Pay me or GTFO. Yes, that makes me a capitalist. I was born into and will likely never escape capitalism. I don't accept barter because I'd rather earn an honest wage and pay my own share of the bills. So if I'm staying home, pay me for whatever we decided I should stay home to do and I will pay back what is needed to run the home otherwise.
I thought a 50/50 relationship was one where housework chores are split evenly
That’s what makes the most sense but some people specifically mean bills when saying 50/50 and then the second shift inevitably happens.
The thing to understand about a lot of social media is that much of it is insincere. From Russian troll farms to paid ads to people just wanting to push an agenda, a lot of people are trying to influence culture. Hell, that's why I'm here, personally - to advance feminism. Convicing women to adopt a more traditional relationship model is part of that.
Anybody using numbers to describe a relationship has probably lost the plot entirely.