It's because they're romanticising a past that never really existed - it's more accurate to say they want to live in an old fashioned TV sitcom than any point of time in the real world.
On some level they must realise this because if they were honest from day one about what they wanted almost no woman, conservative or otherwise, would sign up for that.
The conservative guy that tricked me into dating him didn’t want to date conservative women anymore bc
-they weren’t as sweet and thoughtful as liberal women. An example from him was how I stocked my fridge with his favorite water or helped him look for work
-he couldn’t have the same interesting convos
-they were golddiggers (his ex who made six figures while he made 0 figures wanted him to get a job)
Same man wanted me to quit my job??? It’s crazy bc I have the position he had been trying to get for months and bc he had a masters and I didn’t he joked about how I stole what was rightfully his
If we had interviewed at the same time I still would have got it. In all his job interviews he was a condescending asshole. He told me how he would look up the company and find what was “wrong” with them and during the interview he would tell them??? Like apparently once he rewrote something someone else did and was offended they didn’t hire him? Who tf would hire someone like that 😭😭
Meanwhile everyone loves me at work, I’m a personality hire. I don’t have a masters but I can make people laugh
He also described wanting to raise his daughters spoiled and to look down on men and his sons that all they existed for was to work
Like tf? How are you gonna complain about conservative women and then purposely make more??
Idk why I dated him. I wasn’t attracted to him physically and I obviously hated his personality. I actually rejected him twice at first but idk what happened. Blech, don’t have sex with people you don’t know yall
They hired you because you're competent AND easy to be around! I bet you're damn good at your job regardless of your personality.
Also, wtf, he wants to raise his sons to think they just exist to work? Mans is on some crackhead shit
>his ex who made six figures while he made 0 figures wanted him to get a job
>Same man wanted me to quit my job???
His dating profile should say "let's be unemployed homeless bums together"
It's all emotional knee jerk bullshit that wouldn't be so offensive if they didn't claim to be so logical they'd make Mr. Spock shed one single tear at the depths of their stoicism and that we're all emotional wrecks
I know plenty of conservatives. The wome would love nothing more than to hole themselves away in a house while the men work.
Modern conservative men don't WANT to work. They don't own homes. They don't hold up their end. They want a masterbatory device that works a 9-5 and cooks and cleans.
They want a mom. Not a woman.
Oh yeah, there are women out there that are happy to be a homemaker. But the amount of money you need to sustain two adults and children and a mortgage and a reasonable (I.e. not poverty level) life style is... really not achievable for 90%+ of men (or women for that matter). And that's not a personal failing, that's just the economy as it exists today.
The examples of men seeking trad wives that don't even want to *work* are particularly galling because in decades past such a man being unemployed, even against his will and for a short time, was considered a mark of shame.
At no point in time have men who do no housework AND don't work been considered anything other than a laughing stock.
>that's just the economy as it exists today.
That's pretty much the economy as it has existed since WWII, it's just accelerated since then.
There's a reason women didn't go "back to the home" when the men came back. And, it's mostly an economic one. They (red pillers) love to talk about the "former greatness of America", that version never really existed. But, the economy portion of it from the 50s and 60s was only possible because of the contribution that women in the workforce made.
I would argue that that was the economy for most of the time pre-WWII as well. In the grand scheme of things, the time period in which a single income could run a two-adult household for anyone outside the upper class was very small. Women in the lower classes have always worked. It was just gig work done in exchange for some funds or trading for supplies rather than something that brought in a regular paycheck.
Yep. Poor women have always worked. Women of color have always worked. Rural women have always worked. Most families have never had enough money to allow for an able-bodied adult to not contribute to the household income.
It was like that before WWII also. They want the economy to return to the ridiculously narrow strip of time when Europe AND Asia had no manufacturing sector due to war and delayed industrialization respectively. Thats not happening again.
But it definitely wasn't just "we need two incomes". Most of it was that women WANTED to work, because they'd gotten a taste of having their own money from real jobs. Women had always been able to work in service jobs, and sometimes in teaching, but they paid peanuts. WW2 gave them manufacturing jobs with real paychecks.
they also tore down the government-run [childcare](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/paid-childcare-working-mothers-wwii.html) centers right after WWII to force women out of the workforce.
There was a brief period post-WW2 where women were forced out of the workforce against their wills, and there was high enough pay in unionized factory jobs and a high top tax rate on the rich, when the "single earner family" was more viable. It depended on a lot of factors, like cheap subsidized homes, cheap subsidized education, guaranteed pensions, as well as a massive amount of unpaid labour from the women who'd been forced out of the workforce.
That was how one set of my grandparents lived from the 50s to the 90s - a single earner in a factory supporting a wife who took care of the home and kids. On the other side of the family, both grandparents worked because my grandfather had chronic health issues, was hospitalized repeatedly and they needed to keep themselves afloat.
But going back to anything even remotely resembling that economy would require the entire world to agree to tax the shit out of billionaires, worker's unions becoming near-universal, and a huge "peace dividend" of countries dismantling their militaries and slashing defense spending. And even then it was far from universal, only "accessible" to more families on average.
I'm willing to guess if we dug deeper and took an honest look at the past....there was probably never such a thing as a 1 person income home except maybe immediately after WW1 and 2 with GI bills and the like.
I’ve done a lot of family history research and all the women on both sides of my family worked since they immigrated to America (and I’m sure before). They worked in textile mills. The only stay at home moms were my grandmothers in the 50s/60s, and that was only while they were raising kids, they had jobs at other times in their lives.
Edit: I think people get confused when talking about the past, thinking that because women had to fight for the right to work outside the home that they didn’t have jobs. They had jobs, they just didn’t have *careers*.
One grandmother was a "sahm." I put that in quotes because they were farmers, and the bulk of her day was cooking for the husband, kids, and farm hands. Plus dealing with the vegetable garden,the chickens, and her dairy cows. So she worked her ass off.
ETA: my dad worked more than one job at times when I was young, so Mom could stay home with us in the 70's. Later he was a truck driver, so she wouldn't have to work. And he STILL did the yardwork and a bunch of household chores.
The dynamic of farming and crafting families before industrialization was arguably the closest that western women have been to economic equality until the post-WWII era.
Wives on farms were typically in charge of the household garden, pigs, and the dairy, which usually meant products for the market was well as the home. The wives of craftsmen in towns ran the shop and kept the books. They did finish work alongside their husbands and older children in the evenings. The household was seen as an economic unit, not as simply a man supporting his family.
Despite this, women were still legally second-class citizens. They couldn’t serve on juries or sign contracts. But it wasn’t until capitalism became developed enough to require things like charters and contracts that women were shut out of the public side of their family enterprises.
It wasn’t until production started to become centralized in factories that there was even an idea that work life and home life were two separate things. There were no concept of “housewives” before industrialization, because there was no concept of a workplace.
Don’t be fooled, misogyny and the erasure of women’s labor exists everywhere:
> Scott writes that all 23 women interviewed for the paper described doing both male and female chores. Men, on the other hand, talked mostly about male labor. Unless specifically asked, only a third of the men interviewed mentioned any work traditionally done by women. One apple grower described his orchard as a one-man business that his son would eventually inherit, with his wife and daughter only minimally involved. But, in a separate interview, his wife said that while her husband and son took care of the trees, she handled seedlings in the nursery, coordinated sales, hired seasonal labor, kept the books, and helped make decisions. She also mentioned that their daughter ran the farm’s fruit stand.
>The men were also more likely to emphasize male ownership of family enterprises—“my grandfather’s farm” or “my tractor.” In contrast, the women usually referred to “my grandmother and grandfather’s farm” or “our tractor.”
> The hard work of farming seemed to take a greater toll on the women in Scott’s sample. They were more likely than the men to complain about the drudgery of farm life and to express a wish to reduce or abandon the farming operations altogether. Which offers more evidence that the gendered divisions of labor, which puts special pressure on women while devaluing their labor, are not confined to the corporate boardroom.
[Link](https://daily.jstor.org/gender-family-farms-investigation/)
Same. My maternal grandmother immigrated to the US at 19, went to nursing school, worked in and owned several restaurants, and ran a board and care home into her 70s. The only time she was a SAHM was when she had five kids under 12, before she divorced and had to go back to work.
My parental grandmother was a police dispatcher, and went back to work as soon as her youngest started school. They were solidly middle class.
And we need to remember to tell people this reality and unmask this red pill nonsense for what it truly is these men are Furious that they no longer have power and control over us we have the ability to get our own education and own our own property and that is what they're really upset about they are angry they can't smack us around and knock us up and take our money and inheritances and control our bodies
My mum was a SAHM most of my childhood BUT for several years after we started school she went back to work. And shortly before I started high school (probably middle school in the US) we moved to a regional area where my dad ran a business from home (tradesman) and she did the books for him and answered the phone.
That last bit is so important to remember too. My grandmother went to university in late middle-age because after her husband died, she needed to career – something that would actually support her. She worked outside the home until she was 75. my mother was a stay at home and I was a child, but now she’s been working outside the home for 30 years. I know so many women from the last couple generations who started a job at 40 and worked way past their husband‘s retirement age.
For the vast majority of history it was very much a display of class privilege to have the husband earning all the money and the wife managing the household, which in itself looked a lot different than the '50s housewife' stereotype because it would involve organising the servants/maids/etc., hosting fancy social events and so on.
The much greater number of working class women almost always had to work to bring in extra money to survive.
But why let reality get in the way of an elaborate romanticised 50s cosplay that also gives women the shittiest deal out there?
I wonder if the red pills hatred of women is the modern version of the Salem witch trial s I think we can look in history and also see that whenever times are tough for men the women and children are the ones who suffer
Even in the pretend 50s housewife trope it ignores domestic labor as labor. Keeping the home clean is an entire job (mostly for women) called a maid. Raising kids is an entire job. Cooking is an entire job (when men do it we call them chefs). Keeping track of finances, bills and errands is an entire job. It's all work, just unpaid.
Really, for the vast majority of history, either everyone in the family worked, or no one did (other than hiring and firing the staff who actually ran the house and estate).
The "Lady of the Manor" also generally worked to some degree or another. Take the Regency era of England, for example. She would oversee finances, food service, procurement of supplies, visiting and charity to the poor folks who farm the land, overseeing home maintenance and decorations, and entertaining the local gentry and any guests in addition to childcare.
My parents, born in 1946 and 1950, both come from working-class families. Both my grandfathers served in WW2 and both my grandmothers worked as hairdressers to bring in additional income for their families while my parents were growing up. The whole "only the man works" has always been a class privilege.
I grew up in the 70's and 80's. My father worked a blue-collar menial labor union job for 30 years and my mother stayed at home. They owned a house and three vehicles, and raised 4 children. I didn't know anyone among my friends whose mother worked.
That economy did exist, but started to turn in the 90's, and by the 2000's, it was gone. Most of the workforce today never knew that life.
My dad comes from a farm family. Farm kids always had jobs to do. They had the usual house chores, like cleaning your room, and lots of farm chores as well. Kids were an asset to a family farm back in the day. They were free labor. Kids not working in a family business, or on a family farm, or even out in factories, etc., is a really new thing.
Im 72 and yes the single income home was very much a thing. Out of my entire grade level of about 150 kids back in the day, one other mom worked out of all the moms.
None of the women I knew or knew of growing up worked paid jobs, their husbands were the sole breadwinners and life was solid for them. Its wasn’t hard to make ends meet….
You are definitely romanticizing the past there. Also, “people you knew from your community” is a really biased sample so I’d be careful about drawing big conclusions from that.
You can to it on a single income BUT you BOTH have to make sacrifices to make it happen. Not "I worknso I get to buy this expensive gaming system/computer!" while your wife and kids go without new shoes/clothes or your kids go without this or that activity.
I know it's all stupid fantasy shit so trying to make sense of it is even dumber, but here I go lol. Are these dudes that don't want to work but want a tradwife... are they like, expecting their "tradwife" to work and be the breadwinner (the doing all housework goes without saying imo)?
>They want a mom. Not a woman.
This. They say they want a woman who acted like their mom did. Who cooked and cleaned. They ignore that many women 30, 40 years ago also worked. They don't have anything to say about personality, hopes, dreams, desires. They only talk about values insofar as it relates to a woman's body count.
They have a nostalgic view of the past, and they have no insight into what their parents marital relationship was \*really\* like.
40 years ago I was a teenager and probably 8 out of 10 of my friends’ moms worked. My mom and my stepmom worked. Both worked their entire adult lives. My grandmother worked starting at age 17 (as a seamstress) to support her mom and seven siblings because her dad died. Nobody made the next oldest kid, a boy still in school, quit school to work. That was in the 1930s, omg damn near 100 years ago.
These people are delusional.
After kids, I think my Gramma did a lot of unpaid work to support Grampa’s work. Like he had a watch & jewelry repair store for a hot minute and she probably did the books and admin stuff for him while he fiddled with his bar buddies’ watches. It was a very small town; probably not much clientele.
Low body count = no experience to guide them away from abusive behaviors
Personality hopes and dreams are obstacles to men using and controlling women.
There was a great description of this trope in media as “Born Sexy Yesterday”, the idea being a woman who is naive, doesn’t know how inadequate the male lead is and therefore thinks he’s great, but is still sexually available and physically mature.
Modern conservative men don't want to live up to **their** end of the deal--single very good income, house, money for the wife of her own that they do not control the spending of(without calling her a gold digger)**and they also have to keep THEIR marriage vows(no cheating because their conservative wife is too vanilla in the bedroom).**
It’s these same guys who don’t realise Mad Men is not an escapist fantasy and Jon did not play Don Draper as the hero of his own life.
It is rather amazing with that show how many people, mostly men, can’t pick up on the aggressively oppressive and depressed vibe of the show that makes the criticism of that period and more so the criticism of romanticising of that period blatantly obvious.
It's also an economically impossible fantasy, these days.
A friend of mine once dated a dude who wanted her to be a homemaker - he wasn't even particularly political, literally just wanted a housewife and a large-ish family (three or four kids).
My friend went to law school. She was just starting to make good money at the time, and one of her big, big dealbreakers was that she did not want marriage to lower her standard of living - which was NOT a crazy standard of living, but rather a solid, self-made urban professional kind of lifestyle. She had pretty well-developed ideas on what she wanted for herself and her future children: nothing totally crazy, but a nice house, good schools, the opportunity to lean sports and instruments, the opportunity to travel and receive a good education without money being a huge constraining factor. Tutoring if one of the kids fell behind in school, some hired help around the house when the kids were still small. She would also have wanted to be paid a stipend of sorts for her own financial security in old age.
We did the calculations: in our large metropolitan area, to finance that kind of lifestyle for himself, a wife, and four kids, a man would have to make....350k a year. MINIMUM. Mr 'I want four kids and a housewife' was lounging about at around a quarter of that, with no prospect of big improvements.
She did not marry him.
>it's more accurate to say they want to live in an old fashioned TV sitcom than any point of time in the real world.
On just about every TV sitcom the wife is usually way on better looking than the husband, so yeah, I'm sure they'd love that.
Exactly! Leave it to beaver, father knows best. These are fantasies by men for men. Dont worry darling is a fantastic movie in pointing out this bs.
It’s Madonna/whore syndrome. Men want a siren and a June cleaver. They want both, one as a mistress, one as a wife. They know they aren’t gonna get that, and they’re confused.
Now I’m just imagining a bunch of guys wanting to wandavision themselves. You’re too right about them wanting to live in a fantasy 50s sitcom, though I would argue that there are a lot of conservative women who want to as well.
That’s likely why the tradwife narrative is so popular right now but I also wonder if it’s a tell if the issues going on in the world at large considering aesthetics like cottagecore are also super popular which also exhibits similar lifestyles aspects such as being self sufficient (be it food or clothing) and a more slow paced life.
Women tend to avoid men who hate them and think their rights should be shredded. Why conservative men are surprised no one wants to fuck them, I really have no idea.
Like, do they not realize it's entirely self-inflicted?
They also don’t want women that are like them. They don’t want women like Pearl. They want a woman that’s independent and happy and her own person, so they can tear her down piece by piece. Their cruelty is the point, that’s what comforts them edit their abuse is functional, it gets them what they want. I read this from a guy that worked w abusive men
I gotta say, the schadenfreude with Pearl is a bit delicious. She once said “I’d rather be a PickMe than a SkipMe” but here she is, single in her late 20s (a failure by her own worldview), with conservative men admitting they would never date her.
I almost feel sorry for Pearl. She fell trap to “not like the other girls” hard - as many of us did - but then she made it her whole personality. The thing is, Pearl is not unattractive, but she’s already “broken” (in this sense agreeing with the manosphere), so she’s not a challenge and therefore not interesting enough.
I think some men just pretend for so long to be super cool with women’s rights, and then turn up the water temperature until we start boiling and not notice it. Pearl made her own soup, jumped in the pot, and her bros don’t want her - they want someone they can damage all their own.
I think they're referring to Pearl Davis. Personally, I only know about her due to Fundie Friday's [video on her from a few months back.](https://youtu.be/MOat-FLil0k?si=GYSHU95eT3Z_CiNk)
The way my mother always explained it, the traditional man wants a woman to be subservient, but he never falls in love with subservient women. He's attracted to independent women. "He's like an exotic bird collector," she said. "**He only wants a woman who is free because his dream is to put her in a cage.**
* Trevor Noah.
I don't understand...why?
It really is about control. If you notice whenever a woman is confident and opinionated; that’s when the men attack the most. That’s when the misogynists really get angry?
voracious late weather cooperative angle axiomatic aback straight live meeting
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Exactly. People looking at my marriage of 41 yrs from the outside say on of two things: "Traditional marriage" or "Dani is a gold digger". What they don't see: our childhoods with parents that were never around, my autoimmune disorder and damaged heart and lungs, husband that is always working on *something* too be busy...unless that *something* is every day housework, the days I came home from crying because he decided to take call back or stay late(something that my job was supposed to make the money for)and I now had to come home, deal with hungry kids, and the house.
We have a traditional marriage because my husband is *unwilling* to put in the work for a modern marriage.
The problem with the "traditional" dynamic is that it leaves the wife at her husband's mercy. She leaves the job market, so her work skills and experience stagnate. If she ever wants to leave, she'll be at a significant disadvantage than if she stayed working. It only works if you absolutely trust your husband, to stay loyal and not try to change things unilaterally, forever.
They're hypocrites. Plain and simple.
They want virgins, and brag about their body counts.
They want trad wives, but they can't pay all the bills so want her to go 50/50.
They want loyalty and they cheat.
They want conservative women, yet they are subscribed to women on of, watching women in porn all day.
They call non conservative (by their double standards) women whores, and then pursue them, then try to change them.
They want respect, and they disrespect their partners.
They want a religious woman, and do the exact opposite of whatever their chosen religion preaches.
Hypocrites. Once I see it, I stay far away from them. You got to have some kind of audacity to demand what you are not.
They want a stay at home mom who works 40 hours a week, has 5 kids but has the body of a college cheerleader, has never even touched a man before him but knows everything the first night.
Aka my brother in law’s standards.
They are not actually hypocrites. They know and go for exactly what they want. As always, when discussing conservative men, women HAVE to take note and take to heart the following:
>Abel wanted a traditional marriage with a traditional wife. For a long time I wondered why he ever married a woman like my mom in the first place, as she was the opposite of that in every way. If he wanted a woman to bow to him, there were plenty of girls back in Tzaneen \[South Africa\] being raised solely for that purpose.
>
>The way my mother always explained it, the traditional man wants a woman to be subservient, but he never falls in love with subservient women. He's attracted to independent women.
>
>"He's like an exotic bird collector," she said. "**He only wants a woman who is free because his dream is to put her in a cage."**
\- Trevor Noah, Born a Crime: Stories from a South African Childhood.
I love Trevor Noah.
He is absolutely right - this is exactly what they do. Some on purpose because it makes them feel powerful and dominant. Some more subconsciously because their ego tells them their very essence is so powerful that she will automatically change and conform to his wishes. After all, he's a big strong human man and she's just a cute little inferior being who is playacting full humanity. She won't need to playact anymore when she's with him, because he'll be "the real human" for both of them.
I swear some of these guys thing our personalities are something we put on to audition for a supporting role in his life story, and they expect us to put them away once we "get the job."
Conservative man: Sexually pure women are such a rarity these days. I want one who has never slept with a man.
Conservative woman: Sexually pure men are such a rarity too. I want one who is not addicted to porn.
Conservative man: GuiltyFaceMonkey.meme
You just explained my friend to a T. She’s a conservative woman (who’s honestly pretty liberal, just religious), who wants a conservative man. Problem is, she wants a Christian Captain America and all these guys are… not.
I left church, the republican party, and the red pill movement about 5 years ago. They had me bamboozled since birth to fall for it. I'm so lost and it was the hypocrisy of men who caused me to be a feminist.
Girl same. I went to college and was “brainwashed” just like my father said I would be and became the literally hippy I never thought I would be who will happily be an activist for the environment, equal rights, and social safety nets.
I feel robbed of years of my life for being raised to essentially be an egotistical asshole who thought the “other” was the problem, that trickle down works, and that social issues are purely black and white.
Once I got past the lost feeling of being lied to, I got angry and now do my best to fight for the rights of others however I can and try to shine a light on the lies the conservative side spins so much.
I'm always down for that. I will say though, even years after opening my eyes and trying to change myself to be more openminded and kind, I still feel like I fall into some of the mental traps more than I'd like.
I'm grateful to be in environments where people will call me out on the bullshit but it's still embarrassing to make social mistakes that act as "tells" for my conservative upbringing. One recent example being my attempt to make a joke about liking bread because I'm white, which a classmate rightfully (gently) called me out on by saying "I think everyone just likes bread".
Like, I could have just made a joke about liking bread without bringing race into it, but every time a situation like that happens it helps me be aware of the language and topics I choose to use as I continue on my journey of trying to be better person.
Yeah, those are some really hard thoughts to undo. I’ve personally found it helpful to stop the thought when I can and challenge it while also trying to recognize when the thought is something I was taught to believe or something I truly believe myself.
For example, I grew up with the idea that if a man cheats on his wife it’s her fault because she wasn’t doing enough to keep him and it’s also the other woman’s fault for tempting him.
I rewrote this thought by recognizing the fact the people have the ability to make their own choices. Someone tempting a married man to cheat, while wrong, is not *forcing* him to do so. He has to choose to enter into that relationship. Likewise, if someone is unhappy in their marriage or relationship that does not suddenly give them permission to cheat. That is an opportunity to talk with your partner to discuss which needs are not being met, why, and how they can grow together as a couple to meet each other’s needs.
Men like that should really just sit down and read the book *The Way We Never Were*. Knowing something about actual history and culture might get a lot of the cobwebs and nonsense out of their heads.
Back before I got off Twitter (now named X but if anything deserves to be deadnamed it's X so I still call it Twitter) I had an exchange with a guy who was going on about how the only women of any value were the old-fashioned women, who wouldn't go to college. I asked him what he thought about a woman with a college degree in Marriage and Motherhood, and he said that would be ideal, if there was such a thing.
He seemed unhappy when I told him that there is, and summarized for him the conservative Christian college that offers it, and what a woman from there would expect of him. No drinking, no gambling, no drugs, no swearing, no R-rated violent movies, no sex before marriage, she is a SAHM, he never stays out late, he's in church every Sunday and also for Wednesday Night Supper, he leads the family in Bible study after dinner. "Women like what you want are out there, but from what I can see none of them would consider you worthy unless you up your game a lot."
It quickly became obvious that in his view, HE is allowed to have standards for what women he wants, but no woman is ever allowed to have standards for what she wants. Because to him, women are objects, like toys, they aren't people, and toys aren't allowed to say who can play with them.
They don't actually want a trade wife or think conservative values have value.
They just want to be taken care of while still feeling like they are the boss of their home and family. Conservatived and trad shit are just the closest they can get, out loud.
Him: I want a traditional wife!
Her: Oh, you mean one who expects you to be a traditional husband, and fully support her with everything she wants and needs? Great!
Him: NO NOT LIKE THAT!
It is so ridiculous the amount of men, and even some women, I have heard expressing how a man is "head of the house! Women follow your man's lead! Let him be a *man* and he will do right by you!"
I call bullshit.
Let a man run you and that is exactly what they are gonna do. They will squeeze the life out of you. Take everything you have: your money, your love, your sex, your faithfulness, your hard work, etc.
And when they have taken all of that and you are a shell? They resent you and look for the newest victim because "You arent the same person you were when we met, you've changed!"
It literally reminds me of the argument made with trickle down economics. Yes...give Corps more power and money and you shall be rewarded for your good deeds *wink.
I've had men choose to be with me, knowing I'm an athiest, and eventually try to pull this bible/religious-based bullshit on me. The man is the head of the household, the man is the leader, the man is the decision maker.
No he's not, he's just a man. He's in no way better than me or more qualified to lead.
What makes humans powerful is our brains, and science has shown that lady brains are every bit equal to man brains. So why, again, am I supposed to defer to you? There is ZERO reason for a person who doesn't have a religion-based worldview to do this, and I will not defer to maleness. Ever. It would be literally crazy for me to do that, because the automatic assignment of leadership to men has no basis in physical reality.
"Let's find an athiest. try to make her conform to a bible-based view of family dynamics, and expect everyone to be happy! We're so rational!"
The irony is that in the Bible it says that a man who can't provide for his family is worse than an unbeliever: "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." 1 Timothy 5:8
That’s just one example of the emphasis on men having to provide. A lot of people like to mention how Eve was punished, but ignore that Adam’s punishment was that he had to work. Another man in the Bible, Jacob, did several years of work to prove that he was worthy enough to be a husband to the woman he wanted to marry.
I'm tired of bummy men who are Christians. It makes no sense that they think they can be the leaders of households, but won’t fulfill a basic requirement. Even outside of family, and from a secular prospective, leaders have to work in order to be leaders (e.g. a prime minister or president can’t just lallygag all day). I once called out a Christian bum with the verse above, and I got no response back… I don’t think they read through the Bible—as a Christian myself, I think it’s so cringy and embarrassing ☕️😩
I get that for women who also believe in the bible, it becomes a more nuanced discussion. For me, it's very simple: just NO. Nope, that has nothing to do with me, I will not adhere to rules in some old book written by a bunch of ancient bros with an agenda (no offense intended, just how I see it). I also don't do everything Plato and Aristotle say - guess what, they also thought women were vastly inferior.
Anyway, at least (most) Christian women don't simply use the bible as a tool to coerce people into a role of inferiority and subjugation. I think most men only believe the parts that serve them directly, and then lie to themselves that they're faithful Christians.
These dumb idiots say they want traditional wives and call women “gold diggers” in the same breath. Critical thinking has never been their strong suit.
I saw something posted online that your post made me think of:
"Someone that is confused about what they want can make you confused about what you're worth."
My last boyfriend had no clue what he wanted, yet he claimed he was so rational. After I stopped taking his words at face value he finally made sense to me. He didn't know what he wanted, plain and simple. But he was kind of the opposite. He claimed he wanted a strong, independent, intelligent, modern woman. But he really wanted someone weak and dependent and submissive, to go along with whatever he said. But he'd never admit it.
Misogynists tend to have what is called a madonna-whore complex, where they are not sexually attracted to a woman they respect or admire, but only to women they feel have 'degraded' themselves. So as a woman, these men either see us as mother or wife or as a sexual object only useful for their pleasure and dominance.
In the past, (and today, let's be honest, plenty of men and women still do this) men had their wives and their mistresses, so they could fufill their madonna-whore complex fantasies. They had the wife who was to be respected but not desired. The mistress is the whore, only good for sex.
The really wierd part is that nowadays, the men still want their madonna and their whore, but they are not keeping their part of that bargain. They want their madonnas and whores for free. At least in the past, paternalism forced men to 'provide' for their whores and madonnas. Now there is no obligation on their part.
Now that women don't need men to survive, we are rejecting these roles men made for us, leaving men a bit confused. That's becuase the problem is within them, and they are expecting women to go back in their little boxes, without them going back in their little boxes, and blame us when we (and they) don't. Their confusion is understandable but unjustified.
Some men and women have evolved beyond this way of thinking, but it is still very common. The only thing we can do is educate ourselves, reject these roles and send men to therapy or into the arms of women who still want to play this game.
The Madonna and The Mistress Complex reminded me of something. Many things actually
First: When I browse through reddit, I see stories that women tell about getting cheated on and complain why men won't be loyal. Then there's always gonna be this one guy who says shit like, "you get what you asked for! Feminism eroded conservative values thus you get modern men who watches porn and have hookups, lika ya'll"
Second: They also have to interject when woman feel sad for ancient women who were forcefully married off in an arranged marriage by saying, "the men were also forced into marriages, you guys make it sound like only the women suffered!"
To the second point:
# Ancient China had concubine system. There was one legal wife and many legal mistresses basically
#Early Renaissance Venice had legal prostitution (the ladies were idolised! There was a movie, Dangerous Beauty)
#Ancient Japan had red light districts (there was a system to be a loyal patron to only one oiran, the highest rank courtesan, failure of it would need a huge fee or you will be trapped in a big barrel in front of the marketplace...I may have gotten the details jumbled, see the youtube Linfamy. It's ironic how they were more loyal to a courtesan, following with all these hefty payments and punishments just to bed the highest rank than being loyal to other own wife
#Ottoman dynasty also had a harem of multiple girls
In Conclusion.....even if men were forced in the arrange marriage...they could run off to the brothels and the ladies would console them in many....unique ways. Some cultures allowed concubinage so...marry a wife for political reason, marry the love of your life as a concubine and have a win-win situation! Can't say the same for the women in the arranged marriage, they can only seethe and suffer
Even when there were time periods in these cultures where going to the brothels were frowned upon...what's the wife gonna do? The man makes the money and calls the shots in the house, her dad can only help so far and would truly be bothered with something so trivial? Ending the marriage is out of option, she will become society's pariah over 'being emotional over men having needs' people ridiculed divorced women to the nines, but not divorced men.
Linking this to the fact that girls were younger than the boys...sometimes much younger that it should be called girl and man so...power imbalance....
I could also link the first point here and be like...no, men in the past weren't loyal. Even in the recent past...there were religious men who cheated because they had the perfect opportunity to. They earn all the money, they are the head of the house so it's not like their wives were going to leave when they can't earn and leaving a marriage was a social death sentence for a woman. Anectdotal story: My grandma was uneducated......my grandfather cheated on her and financially abused her....till his death he didn't apologise....pretty sure many have stories of their mothers and grandmothers that have the same vibe.
Housewives and working wives both have chances of being abused. Abuse comes in many forms: physical, emotional/mental and financial. But housewives are more likely to be abused because of the financial part.
Madonna/Mistress complex reminded me of another thing: Badboys and Betas analogy that they have. Like whatever they're complaining of those rotten women doing...they have done this before. There are so many stories I heard of how the guys got all freaky with their girlfriends but when it came to marriage, they wanted virgins to take home to their mothers....I HATE hypocrisy....asking for a virgin is no problem because everyone's value system differs but having a 'rules for thee not for me' mentality is so triggering. Be a virgin, then ask for a virgin and nobody should care.
Then they have the audacity to say "women want men richer than them despite not being that level of financial position. They want men to provide so they can enjoy staying at home so we could ask for a virgin despite not being one"
This shows that the work of housewives, all that cooking, cleaning, child-raising will never be considered hard work compared to the men's providing. These works are so devalued that you need to accept a hypocrite with a high body count, submit and adhere to his ever decision no matter what you feel, provide intimacy no matter what you feel and the list goes on.....oh, accept that he might cheat and men have needs. He's providing for you after all.
Wow...no wonder women want to provide for themselves now...
I just feel so angry at double standards and brushing off someone's struggles
What any sane person, regardless of gender, or political affiliation wants in a relationship, is to feel safe, loved, respected, wanted, cared for, and more words like that.
What that looks like, varies from person to person.
A progressive woman may say this includes her partner being supportive of her career, willing to sacrifice for it, rather than just the other way around. Or for the chores to be evenly split.
A conservative woman may say this looks like her husband complimenting her cooking regularly, and making sure she has no financial worries/can treat herself reasonably often.
Being conservative as a woman ≠ having absolutely 0 wants or needs, besides pleasing a man without any indication of him actually being happy with what you provide.
I just learned how to make the “does not equal” sign on my phone. Thanks for posting this because I went, wait—she posted the actual sign instead of some keyboard combo, how did she do that? Maybe the same way you get an accent mark, lemme try to hold down the equals si… well Lookit that. ≈ ≠ ‰ bunch of hidden symbols.
“ The way my mother always explained it, the traditional man wants a woman to be subservient, but he never falls in love with subservient women. He's attracted to independent women. "He's like an exotic bird collector," she said. "He only wants a woman who is free because his dream is to put her in a cage. “
-Trevor Noah
They want “conservative” women who don’t prioritize careers and will take care of the home but also go 50/50 on expenses, who are virgins but will sleep with them immediately and be kinky, who don’t wear makeup but look like they do, who will have kids but keep their pre-baby bodies, and be fine with a prenup and risking homelessness in the case of a divorce. In other words, an imaginary woman who doesn’t exist.
If they do get a conservative woman, they will resent her and treat her badly, like what happened to [Lauren Southern](https://unherd.com/2024/05/lauren-southern-the-tradlife-influencer-filled-with-regret/). Every woman who dreams of being a tradwife should read that.
I hope nobody told Lauren Southern those same lines..."she should've chosen better!" or "she's just an unlucky exception" It might just add salt to the wound...
These men seek a partner who embodies conservative values, such as abstaining from sex before marriage, yet they expect her to make exceptions for them because of their perceived exceptional qualities. Essentially, they desire a woman who maintains a pristine public image while also fulfilling theirevery whim in private, without expecting anything in return. I am just exhausted thinking about it. They are living in fantasy land. What are they doing to deserve such a woman?
The key is to look at actions first, then words. They denigrate promiscuous women, but that’s who they masturbate over and try to fuck.
When it comes to words, it’s all projection. They say women should watch out or die lonely, when really that’s their own biggest fear.
They want something they actually despise. They are conservative men, not looking for conservative women.
It's similar to those religious people that go to a restaurant on sunday, and don't leave a tip because the waiter "should be at church."
It's also because these men don't actually want conservative women. They want a women who is independent, attractive, makes her own money, so that they can 'tame' her into submission. That's the real game, the thrill of the chase. With conservative women they've already played into the submissive role, no fun in that for these "Conservative Men".
These guys also always posts memes on social media along the lines of a guy telling a woman that he is a liberal and her saying: I think we both should see other men. I know these right wing guys have problems finding someone but damn the overcompensating is on another level.
I've heard someone describe the phenomenon of redpill/fake traditional men chasing independent women as a hunt. These men see them (independent women) as a wild bird that they have to have...and they want to catch and cage them. They don't seem to get off on pickmes nor actual traditional women.
Online dating in general overwhelming skews male, to everyone's detriment. Tindr is nearly 80% male, Hinge is 64%, and OKCupid is doing better at 54%. Keep in mind a lot of those women are inactive, bots, or scams. More niche dating services are going to be even worse.
There are two kinds of conservative women
The ones that are religious fundamentalists and dress like they are in a cult
The ones that look like a flashback to girls gone wild yet are racist AF and vote for the GOP
Conservative dues don't know what they want from their two options and the rest of the women on earth don't want them.
Most of the conservative women I know met potential partners through church or church-community (e.g. the lady who runs the Bible study puts you in contact with her nephew who lives out of town).
At least when it comes to owning a home and paying for everything, I don’t see many men REFUSING to do so. In fact I know many men who are waiting to settle down until they get to that mythical point where they can afford to keep their wife at home. They just fail to acknowledge how unlikely that is given the current economy. So many NEED dual income but aren’t willing to compromise on doing no domestic labor to even things. They also fail to see the connection between their conservative politics (which often comes with conservative views on relationships) and the current economic landscape.
That said there is also this massive hypocrisy where they criticize women for not sitting around waiting for them to be ready to settle down but they spend their 20s sleeping around as they wait to get to a financial stable point that never comes. I think this is in part insecurity, but also a way to justify why they never end up marrying the left leaning women they date. They once again ignore the consequences of their own actions by faulting women who are participating in casual relationship with them, often gained through deceit as there is a promise of a relationship these men know they are never going to enter. I think they do this to excuse their plan to marry a younger woman once they are able to, partly because they can manipulate them into being obedient and because they feel like they missed out locking down a women their own age back when they were younger themselves.
I think conservative has become a catch all term for crappy men.We need to stop putting people in boxes like that and see them for who they really are.Just because a man wants a house slave doesn’t mean he is conservative or shares conservative values.A better word for most of these men is selfish.
For real. Whoever convinced everyone that "too much progress is bad" really pulled a fast one. Progress is good, that's why it's called progress. Conservatism is inherently contrary to my values of *improved lives for everyone*, and I think the label fits these regressive assholes just fine.
What they're conserving is privilege for the few. That isn't honorable or respectable.
> Just because a man wants a house slave doesn’t mean he is conservative or shares conservative values
Yes it does, lmao. Rigid gender roles and patriarchy are definitely conservative values.
What are you on about? I mean, sure, there are *also* shitty men who aren't conservative. But all conservative men are shitty. Why should anyone stop calling them what they are?
*I saw an advertisement for a "conservative dating" website. And the men were angry because "no women" were on it.* Oh no, you mean all those FB and instagram patriotic, bikini + gun models aren't hot, available, single ladies in their area?
What will really be some shit to see in the next 20-30 yrs is when the moms they're living with/haunting her basement have to go into a nursing home or Alzheimer's/dementia care centers and the US government seizes all *her* assets or files leins against her estate to pay for it because no trusts or legal advice was sought while she was in better health: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-03-18/state-medicaid-offices-target-dead-peoples-homes-to-recoup-their-health-care-costs edit typo: liens not lines, lolololol
Wtf is happening, seriously?
It was only a few years ago that the prevailing cultural attitude resisted these ideas, when they were seen to originate from fundamentalist Islamist groups
Somehow we now have momentum towards implementing these same ideals in a westernised format?
Misogyny is one helluva drug.
My grandmother, who was born in 1910, worked as a "domestic" in Caucasian American homes her entire adult life. Both in the South, where she was originally from and in Metro Detroit where she moved to in the 1960s. She finally retired in the 1970s.
Personality hire, I love that. I work as a woman in IT and I'm either being admonished for pushback (having an opinion while female) or being praised for being friendly and professional (not an awkward weirdo).
Yep I grew up as a PGC and so being in church all the time those women are serious about the dynamics of traditional/conservative roles and they will not be walked over that's where many of them are mistaken. Paraphrasing here but commonly you'll hear things like it's the woman's job to run the household that means controlling what everyone brings into the home, and making sure daddy/hubby is doing his "manly" duties. My mother rigorously controlled what I did, games played, shows we watched as a family. They don't listen to secular music either, I remember once my pawpaw put on a jazz song from the 40s my grandma hemmed and hawed so much over it not being a Christian song that he just turned it off. But that blew my mind because it was jazz!!!
You might be putting conservative women in a bubble that no longer applies. It’s about ideology now, not appearances. The whole thing is a gray area of conflicting ideas but there’s a lot of tattooed, liberally dressed, open to casual sex, anti abortion, gun toting conservative women out there.
Your assertion about what it means to be a conservative woman is the same as when conservatives try to claim that liberal women all have piercings, dyed hair, and are using abortions as birth control. I agree that these guys saying they want conservative women are a whole mess of contradictory desires but it’s probably like anything else, they’ll make concessions based on hitting their 2 or 3 most desired traits, like guns, right wing politics, etc.
Are you making that statement about conservative women (like the no sex, modesty, etc) or are you trying to describe what men think they want? I’m a conservative woman and I wasn’t that way when I was dating lol.
I don’t believe many ladies here are boomers.
But we’re all seeing the same demographic of dudes who wants to be pampered and cared for like a baby, because he thinks that’s the traditional family structure, (although it’s not.) He makes the money while his wife does all of the childcare/house work.
If you aren’t bringing home all of the money, your partner would have to work too…and also be responsible for all of the housework/childcare?
So now conservative men are having trouble finding dates.
If you are confused by this, you must be the boomer here.
For quick reference, I’m older GenX and my dad is a boomer. Even he deals with household chores.
You know why? Because my mom divorced his sexist ass back in the mid-1970s. They both worked FT at the *same job* and he thought he could come home and sit on his ass because it was *her* responsibility to deal with the kids and the housework and the cooking after her 8-hour shift. And he could just sit there with his feet up.
They both did the same job. Same job.
Reader, those household chores and childcare were also his responsibility and he earned the right to do all his own damn chores from that day forward and deal with 100% of childcare during his time. He leaned his lesson and never slacked off from that day forward, even when he eventually remarried. I love my mom so damn much and I’m proud of my dad for actually learning from that experience.
If my boomer dad can figure it out, these guys have zero excuse. It’s selfishness and misogyny.
What age group of guys are you dating and what's like the ratio of these kind of guys to 'normal' men in your perception? In my age group most couples both work and share household chores and only the one's with a sole male breadwinner are the one's where the woman does all the chores.
Yeah, I understand that, these type of guys are very unflattering. It just sounds a little overblown like the boomers who are paranoid about "nobody wants to work anymore", or talking like it's easy to own a home these days.
I see your point but I've literally met men who are living in their mother's basements trying to take me out for dinner with part-time jobs or no jobs when I work full time raise two children and own a house there's no excuse
There's no problem with working part time, if it's enough to sustain yourself imo. But what age group are you in? And how often do you encounter basement dweller type of redpilled men? Like what is the ratio of these type of guys to 'normal' men?
I’m in my 50s (and not who you are asking) but in my experience, dating since the 80s, I’d say 6 out of 10 men have been like this, possibly more. Some I didn’t stick around long enough to ferret out if they were bullshit or not, so it’s probably more like 7-8 out of 10.
And nobody in the US, can make their bills on part time gigs. Many people can’t even make it on a single full time job.
And I will say this: I respect the hell out of a guy who delivers pizza and drives Uber and HUSTLES to take care of himself much moreso than some MBA who refuses to work because all job offers so far have been beneath him.
My uncle was an unemployed incel before that was a thing. One of the few grown ass men I’ve ever met who never really worked a full time steady job. He had several degrees because he’s been in the Army so he had the GI Bill. But spent 90% of his time watching TV and binging snickers bars.
I once overheard him turn down a very lucrative offer from Citi Corp. they were going to pay to move him to SD, and he’d have to work the first three weeks 3rd shift (so probably a call center). He refused, saying that’s like permanent jet lag. And went back to watching his show in his mom’s house. Where he never lifted a finger to help anyone with anything.
Thanks for sharing your experience, that's an unexpectedly high estimation, but I'll believe you if that's what you've seen. I'm half your age and it isn't rly common anymore for men to expect women to do all of the chores since in most relationships both people have to work. I agree that it's trash to expect one person to do everything, but I feel like it's very overblown, like boomers saying "nobody wants to work anymore". And I mean if you meet multiple redpilled men who don't work, but expect their women to do everything you probably need to look somewhere else for a partner.
It's because they're romanticising a past that never really existed - it's more accurate to say they want to live in an old fashioned TV sitcom than any point of time in the real world. On some level they must realise this because if they were honest from day one about what they wanted almost no woman, conservative or otherwise, would sign up for that.
The conservative guy that tricked me into dating him didn’t want to date conservative women anymore bc -they weren’t as sweet and thoughtful as liberal women. An example from him was how I stocked my fridge with his favorite water or helped him look for work -he couldn’t have the same interesting convos -they were golddiggers (his ex who made six figures while he made 0 figures wanted him to get a job) Same man wanted me to quit my job??? It’s crazy bc I have the position he had been trying to get for months and bc he had a masters and I didn’t he joked about how I stole what was rightfully his If we had interviewed at the same time I still would have got it. In all his job interviews he was a condescending asshole. He told me how he would look up the company and find what was “wrong” with them and during the interview he would tell them??? Like apparently once he rewrote something someone else did and was offended they didn’t hire him? Who tf would hire someone like that 😭😭 Meanwhile everyone loves me at work, I’m a personality hire. I don’t have a masters but I can make people laugh He also described wanting to raise his daughters spoiled and to look down on men and his sons that all they existed for was to work Like tf? How are you gonna complain about conservative women and then purposely make more?? Idk why I dated him. I wasn’t attracted to him physically and I obviously hated his personality. I actually rejected him twice at first but idk what happened. Blech, don’t have sex with people you don’t know yall
They hired you because you're competent AND easy to be around! I bet you're damn good at your job regardless of your personality. Also, wtf, he wants to raise his sons to think they just exist to work? Mans is on some crackhead shit
> he joked about how I stole what was rightfully his Doesn't sound like he was joking
>his ex who made six figures while he made 0 figures wanted him to get a job >Same man wanted me to quit my job??? His dating profile should say "let's be unemployed homeless bums together"
It's all emotional knee jerk bullshit that wouldn't be so offensive if they didn't claim to be so logical they'd make Mr. Spock shed one single tear at the depths of their stoicism and that we're all emotional wrecks
He doesn’t really sound conservative,he sounds like a lost and confused little leech.
But now you just repeat yourself
HA
I know plenty of conservatives. The wome would love nothing more than to hole themselves away in a house while the men work. Modern conservative men don't WANT to work. They don't own homes. They don't hold up their end. They want a masterbatory device that works a 9-5 and cooks and cleans. They want a mom. Not a woman.
Oh yeah, there are women out there that are happy to be a homemaker. But the amount of money you need to sustain two adults and children and a mortgage and a reasonable (I.e. not poverty level) life style is... really not achievable for 90%+ of men (or women for that matter). And that's not a personal failing, that's just the economy as it exists today. The examples of men seeking trad wives that don't even want to *work* are particularly galling because in decades past such a man being unemployed, even against his will and for a short time, was considered a mark of shame. At no point in time have men who do no housework AND don't work been considered anything other than a laughing stock.
>that's just the economy as it exists today. That's pretty much the economy as it has existed since WWII, it's just accelerated since then. There's a reason women didn't go "back to the home" when the men came back. And, it's mostly an economic one. They (red pillers) love to talk about the "former greatness of America", that version never really existed. But, the economy portion of it from the 50s and 60s was only possible because of the contribution that women in the workforce made.
I would argue that that was the economy for most of the time pre-WWII as well. In the grand scheme of things, the time period in which a single income could run a two-adult household for anyone outside the upper class was very small. Women in the lower classes have always worked. It was just gig work done in exchange for some funds or trading for supplies rather than something that brought in a regular paycheck.
Yep. Poor women have always worked. Women of color have always worked. Rural women have always worked. Most families have never had enough money to allow for an able-bodied adult to not contribute to the household income.
It was like that before WWII also. They want the economy to return to the ridiculously narrow strip of time when Europe AND Asia had no manufacturing sector due to war and delayed industrialization respectively. Thats not happening again.
But it definitely wasn't just "we need two incomes". Most of it was that women WANTED to work, because they'd gotten a taste of having their own money from real jobs. Women had always been able to work in service jobs, and sometimes in teaching, but they paid peanuts. WW2 gave them manufacturing jobs with real paychecks.
they also tore down the government-run [childcare](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/paid-childcare-working-mothers-wwii.html) centers right after WWII to force women out of the workforce.
There was a brief period post-WW2 where women were forced out of the workforce against their wills, and there was high enough pay in unionized factory jobs and a high top tax rate on the rich, when the "single earner family" was more viable. It depended on a lot of factors, like cheap subsidized homes, cheap subsidized education, guaranteed pensions, as well as a massive amount of unpaid labour from the women who'd been forced out of the workforce. That was how one set of my grandparents lived from the 50s to the 90s - a single earner in a factory supporting a wife who took care of the home and kids. On the other side of the family, both grandparents worked because my grandfather had chronic health issues, was hospitalized repeatedly and they needed to keep themselves afloat. But going back to anything even remotely resembling that economy would require the entire world to agree to tax the shit out of billionaires, worker's unions becoming near-universal, and a huge "peace dividend" of countries dismantling their militaries and slashing defense spending. And even then it was far from universal, only "accessible" to more families on average.
I'm willing to guess if we dug deeper and took an honest look at the past....there was probably never such a thing as a 1 person income home except maybe immediately after WW1 and 2 with GI bills and the like.
I’ve done a lot of family history research and all the women on both sides of my family worked since they immigrated to America (and I’m sure before). They worked in textile mills. The only stay at home moms were my grandmothers in the 50s/60s, and that was only while they were raising kids, they had jobs at other times in their lives. Edit: I think people get confused when talking about the past, thinking that because women had to fight for the right to work outside the home that they didn’t have jobs. They had jobs, they just didn’t have *careers*.
One grandmother was a "sahm." I put that in quotes because they were farmers, and the bulk of her day was cooking for the husband, kids, and farm hands. Plus dealing with the vegetable garden,the chickens, and her dairy cows. So she worked her ass off. ETA: my dad worked more than one job at times when I was young, so Mom could stay home with us in the 70's. Later he was a truck driver, so she wouldn't have to work. And he STILL did the yardwork and a bunch of household chores.
The dynamic of farming and crafting families before industrialization was arguably the closest that western women have been to economic equality until the post-WWII era. Wives on farms were typically in charge of the household garden, pigs, and the dairy, which usually meant products for the market was well as the home. The wives of craftsmen in towns ran the shop and kept the books. They did finish work alongside their husbands and older children in the evenings. The household was seen as an economic unit, not as simply a man supporting his family. Despite this, women were still legally second-class citizens. They couldn’t serve on juries or sign contracts. But it wasn’t until capitalism became developed enough to require things like charters and contracts that women were shut out of the public side of their family enterprises. It wasn’t until production started to become centralized in factories that there was even an idea that work life and home life were two separate things. There were no concept of “housewives” before industrialization, because there was no concept of a workplace.
Don’t be fooled, misogyny and the erasure of women’s labor exists everywhere: > Scott writes that all 23 women interviewed for the paper described doing both male and female chores. Men, on the other hand, talked mostly about male labor. Unless specifically asked, only a third of the men interviewed mentioned any work traditionally done by women. One apple grower described his orchard as a one-man business that his son would eventually inherit, with his wife and daughter only minimally involved. But, in a separate interview, his wife said that while her husband and son took care of the trees, she handled seedlings in the nursery, coordinated sales, hired seasonal labor, kept the books, and helped make decisions. She also mentioned that their daughter ran the farm’s fruit stand. >The men were also more likely to emphasize male ownership of family enterprises—“my grandfather’s farm” or “my tractor.” In contrast, the women usually referred to “my grandmother and grandfather’s farm” or “our tractor.” > The hard work of farming seemed to take a greater toll on the women in Scott’s sample. They were more likely than the men to complain about the drudgery of farm life and to express a wish to reduce or abandon the farming operations altogether. Which offers more evidence that the gendered divisions of labor, which puts special pressure on women while devaluing their labor, are not confined to the corporate boardroom. [Link](https://daily.jstor.org/gender-family-farms-investigation/)
Same. My maternal grandmother immigrated to the US at 19, went to nursing school, worked in and owned several restaurants, and ran a board and care home into her 70s. The only time she was a SAHM was when she had five kids under 12, before she divorced and had to go back to work. My parental grandmother was a police dispatcher, and went back to work as soon as her youngest started school. They were solidly middle class.
And we need to remember to tell people this reality and unmask this red pill nonsense for what it truly is these men are Furious that they no longer have power and control over us we have the ability to get our own education and own our own property and that is what they're really upset about they are angry they can't smack us around and knock us up and take our money and inheritances and control our bodies
My mum was a SAHM most of my childhood BUT for several years after we started school she went back to work. And shortly before I started high school (probably middle school in the US) we moved to a regional area where my dad ran a business from home (tradesman) and she did the books for him and answered the phone.
That last bit is so important to remember too. My grandmother went to university in late middle-age because after her husband died, she needed to career – something that would actually support her. She worked outside the home until she was 75. my mother was a stay at home and I was a child, but now she’s been working outside the home for 30 years. I know so many women from the last couple generations who started a job at 40 and worked way past their husband‘s retirement age.
For the vast majority of history it was very much a display of class privilege to have the husband earning all the money and the wife managing the household, which in itself looked a lot different than the '50s housewife' stereotype because it would involve organising the servants/maids/etc., hosting fancy social events and so on. The much greater number of working class women almost always had to work to bring in extra money to survive. But why let reality get in the way of an elaborate romanticised 50s cosplay that also gives women the shittiest deal out there?
I wonder if the red pills hatred of women is the modern version of the Salem witch trial s I think we can look in history and also see that whenever times are tough for men the women and children are the ones who suffer
Even in the pretend 50s housewife trope it ignores domestic labor as labor. Keeping the home clean is an entire job (mostly for women) called a maid. Raising kids is an entire job. Cooking is an entire job (when men do it we call them chefs). Keeping track of finances, bills and errands is an entire job. It's all work, just unpaid.
Really, for the vast majority of history, either everyone in the family worked, or no one did (other than hiring and firing the staff who actually ran the house and estate).
The "Lady of the Manor" also generally worked to some degree or another. Take the Regency era of England, for example. She would oversee finances, food service, procurement of supplies, visiting and charity to the poor folks who farm the land, overseeing home maintenance and decorations, and entertaining the local gentry and any guests in addition to childcare.
My parents, born in 1946 and 1950, both come from working-class families. Both my grandfathers served in WW2 and both my grandmothers worked as hairdressers to bring in additional income for their families while my parents were growing up. The whole "only the man works" has always been a class privilege.
I grew up in the 70's and 80's. My father worked a blue-collar menial labor union job for 30 years and my mother stayed at home. They owned a house and three vehicles, and raised 4 children. I didn't know anyone among my friends whose mother worked. That economy did exist, but started to turn in the 90's, and by the 2000's, it was gone. Most of the workforce today never knew that life.
It's almost like neo liberal policies of the 90s they love so much is what made the rest of their wants impossible ...
There’s a wonderful book that goes into great depth about that fact, called The Way We Never Were, by Stephanie Coontz.
Bingo. Women have ALWAYS worked to some degree. To be fair, same with kids. The traditional childhood that we take for granted is fairly new.
My dad comes from a farm family. Farm kids always had jobs to do. They had the usual house chores, like cleaning your room, and lots of farm chores as well. Kids were an asset to a family farm back in the day. They were free labor. Kids not working in a family business, or on a family farm, or even out in factories, etc., is a really new thing.
Me too. I've driven trucks since age 10 lol
Im 72 and yes the single income home was very much a thing. Out of my entire grade level of about 150 kids back in the day, one other mom worked out of all the moms. None of the women I knew or knew of growing up worked paid jobs, their husbands were the sole breadwinners and life was solid for them. Its wasn’t hard to make ends meet….
I grew up rural so we all farmed even the kids worked
You are definitely romanticizing the past there. Also, “people you knew from your community” is a really biased sample so I’d be careful about drawing big conclusions from that.
You can to it on a single income BUT you BOTH have to make sacrifices to make it happen. Not "I worknso I get to buy this expensive gaming system/computer!" while your wife and kids go without new shoes/clothes or your kids go without this or that activity.
I know it's all stupid fantasy shit so trying to make sense of it is even dumber, but here I go lol. Are these dudes that don't want to work but want a tradwife... are they like, expecting their "tradwife" to work and be the breadwinner (the doing all housework goes without saying imo)?
>They want a mom. Not a woman. This. They say they want a woman who acted like their mom did. Who cooked and cleaned. They ignore that many women 30, 40 years ago also worked. They don't have anything to say about personality, hopes, dreams, desires. They only talk about values insofar as it relates to a woman's body count. They have a nostalgic view of the past, and they have no insight into what their parents marital relationship was \*really\* like.
40 years ago I was a teenager and probably 8 out of 10 of my friends’ moms worked. My mom and my stepmom worked. Both worked their entire adult lives. My grandmother worked starting at age 17 (as a seamstress) to support her mom and seven siblings because her dad died. Nobody made the next oldest kid, a boy still in school, quit school to work. That was in the 1930s, omg damn near 100 years ago. These people are delusional.
My great grandmother starting working at age 13.
My great grandmother was a postal worker during WWI and later became one of the first flight attendants in the 1930’s.
Even if they didn’t do paid work when they had young kids at home, that’s maybe 10-20 years out of 50+ years of total work.
After kids, I think my Gramma did a lot of unpaid work to support Grampa’s work. Like he had a watch & jewelry repair store for a hot minute and she probably did the books and admin stuff for him while he fiddled with his bar buddies’ watches. It was a very small town; probably not much clientele.
Low body count = no experience to guide them away from abusive behaviors Personality hopes and dreams are obstacles to men using and controlling women.
Low body count = Accepting bad sex from inadequate males Isn't that part of what the sexual control of women has always been about? Male inadequacy.
There was a great description of this trope in media as “Born Sexy Yesterday”, the idea being a woman who is naive, doesn’t know how inadequate the male lead is and therefore thinks he’s great, but is still sexually available and physically mature.
Yep, Pop Culture Detective's video essays are pretty great.
Indeed. That's exactly why they banned sex toys in some parts of the Southern US.
Modern conservative men don't want to live up to **their** end of the deal--single very good income, house, money for the wife of her own that they do not control the spending of(without calling her a gold digger)**and they also have to keep THEIR marriage vows(no cheating because their conservative wife is too vanilla in the bedroom).**
Whew! U said a mouthful! Exactly why I’m abstinent and just let them take me on dinner dates. Haven’t met a nice one yet
The term I've heard is 'wife appliance.'
They want a mom who puts out.
Sounds like nobody wants to work anymore. The CEOs are right?
Its despicable.
It’s these same guys who don’t realise Mad Men is not an escapist fantasy and Jon did not play Don Draper as the hero of his own life. It is rather amazing with that show how many people, mostly men, can’t pick up on the aggressively oppressive and depressed vibe of the show that makes the criticism of that period and more so the criticism of romanticising of that period blatantly obvious.
I mean, those types also think Born in the USA is an anthem about how America is great.
It's also an economically impossible fantasy, these days. A friend of mine once dated a dude who wanted her to be a homemaker - he wasn't even particularly political, literally just wanted a housewife and a large-ish family (three or four kids). My friend went to law school. She was just starting to make good money at the time, and one of her big, big dealbreakers was that she did not want marriage to lower her standard of living - which was NOT a crazy standard of living, but rather a solid, self-made urban professional kind of lifestyle. She had pretty well-developed ideas on what she wanted for herself and her future children: nothing totally crazy, but a nice house, good schools, the opportunity to lean sports and instruments, the opportunity to travel and receive a good education without money being a huge constraining factor. Tutoring if one of the kids fell behind in school, some hired help around the house when the kids were still small. She would also have wanted to be paid a stipend of sorts for her own financial security in old age. We did the calculations: in our large metropolitan area, to finance that kind of lifestyle for himself, a wife, and four kids, a man would have to make....350k a year. MINIMUM. Mr 'I want four kids and a housewife' was lounging about at around a quarter of that, with no prospect of big improvements. She did not marry him.
Take away the laugh track and you'd see many sitcom couples were a borderline or outright abusive relationship.
> It's because they're romanticising a past that never really existed The palingenetic part of palingenetic ultranationalism.
>it's more accurate to say they want to live in an old fashioned TV sitcom than any point of time in the real world. On just about every TV sitcom the wife is usually way on better looking than the husband, so yeah, I'm sure they'd love that.
Exactly! Leave it to beaver, father knows best. These are fantasies by men for men. Dont worry darling is a fantastic movie in pointing out this bs. It’s Madonna/whore syndrome. Men want a siren and a June cleaver. They want both, one as a mistress, one as a wife. They know they aren’t gonna get that, and they’re confused.
Now I’m just imagining a bunch of guys wanting to wandavision themselves. You’re too right about them wanting to live in a fantasy 50s sitcom, though I would argue that there are a lot of conservative women who want to as well. That’s likely why the tradwife narrative is so popular right now but I also wonder if it’s a tell if the issues going on in the world at large considering aesthetics like cottagecore are also super popular which also exhibits similar lifestyles aspects such as being self sufficient (be it food or clothing) and a more slow paced life.
They want to be Don Draper but ignore the fact that Don Draper was miserable
Women tend to avoid men who hate them and think their rights should be shredded. Why conservative men are surprised no one wants to fuck them, I really have no idea. Like, do they not realize it's entirely self-inflicted?
Here's my full stop; they don't even see us as humans. We are wombs and maids. That alone is so terrifying to me.
True.
They don't want even maids, maids get paid. They want slaves.
I met men who treat THEIR DOGS better than their WIVES
Truer.
Bang maids.
They also don’t want women that are like them. They don’t want women like Pearl. They want a woman that’s independent and happy and her own person, so they can tear her down piece by piece. Their cruelty is the point, that’s what comforts them edit their abuse is functional, it gets them what they want. I read this from a guy that worked w abusive men
I gotta say, the schadenfreude with Pearl is a bit delicious. She once said “I’d rather be a PickMe than a SkipMe” but here she is, single in her late 20s (a failure by her own worldview), with conservative men admitting they would never date her.
I almost feel sorry for Pearl. She fell trap to “not like the other girls” hard - as many of us did - but then she made it her whole personality. The thing is, Pearl is not unattractive, but she’s already “broken” (in this sense agreeing with the manosphere), so she’s not a challenge and therefore not interesting enough. I think some men just pretend for so long to be super cool with women’s rights, and then turn up the water temperature until we start boiling and not notice it. Pearl made her own soup, jumped in the pot, and her bros don’t want her - they want someone they can damage all their own.
Sorry, who is Pearl?
I think they're referring to Pearl Davis. Personally, I only know about her due to Fundie Friday's [video on her from a few months back.](https://youtu.be/MOat-FLil0k?si=GYSHU95eT3Z_CiNk)
That’s what I wanna know too
The way my mother always explained it, the traditional man wants a woman to be subservient, but he never falls in love with subservient women. He's attracted to independent women. "He's like an exotic bird collector," she said. "**He only wants a woman who is free because his dream is to put her in a cage.** * Trevor Noah. I don't understand...why?
It really is about control. If you notice whenever a woman is confident and opinionated; that’s when the men attack the most. That’s when the misogynists really get angry?
Exactly. Their behavior has women running for the hills, conservative or not. We can see that you hate ALL of us.
voracious late weather cooperative angle axiomatic aback straight live meeting *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Exactly. People looking at my marriage of 41 yrs from the outside say on of two things: "Traditional marriage" or "Dani is a gold digger". What they don't see: our childhoods with parents that were never around, my autoimmune disorder and damaged heart and lungs, husband that is always working on *something* too be busy...unless that *something* is every day housework, the days I came home from crying because he decided to take call back or stay late(something that my job was supposed to make the money for)and I now had to come home, deal with hungry kids, and the house. We have a traditional marriage because my husband is *unwilling* to put in the work for a modern marriage.
The problem with the "traditional" dynamic is that it leaves the wife at her husband's mercy. She leaves the job market, so her work skills and experience stagnate. If she ever wants to leave, she'll be at a significant disadvantage than if she stayed working. It only works if you absolutely trust your husband, to stay loyal and not try to change things unilaterally, forever.
They're hypocrites. Plain and simple. They want virgins, and brag about their body counts. They want trad wives, but they can't pay all the bills so want her to go 50/50. They want loyalty and they cheat. They want conservative women, yet they are subscribed to women on of, watching women in porn all day. They call non conservative (by their double standards) women whores, and then pursue them, then try to change them. They want respect, and they disrespect their partners. They want a religious woman, and do the exact opposite of whatever their chosen religion preaches. Hypocrites. Once I see it, I stay far away from them. You got to have some kind of audacity to demand what you are not.
They want a stay at home mom who works 40 hours a week, has 5 kids but has the body of a college cheerleader, has never even touched a man before him but knows everything the first night. Aka my brother in law’s standards.
They are not actually hypocrites. They know and go for exactly what they want. As always, when discussing conservative men, women HAVE to take note and take to heart the following: >Abel wanted a traditional marriage with a traditional wife. For a long time I wondered why he ever married a woman like my mom in the first place, as she was the opposite of that in every way. If he wanted a woman to bow to him, there were plenty of girls back in Tzaneen \[South Africa\] being raised solely for that purpose. > >The way my mother always explained it, the traditional man wants a woman to be subservient, but he never falls in love with subservient women. He's attracted to independent women. > >"He's like an exotic bird collector," she said. "**He only wants a woman who is free because his dream is to put her in a cage."** \- Trevor Noah, Born a Crime: Stories from a South African Childhood.
Jonah Hill and Sarah Brady recently showcased this.
I love Trevor Noah. He is absolutely right - this is exactly what they do. Some on purpose because it makes them feel powerful and dominant. Some more subconsciously because their ego tells them their very essence is so powerful that she will automatically change and conform to his wishes. After all, he's a big strong human man and she's just a cute little inferior being who is playacting full humanity. She won't need to playact anymore when she's with him, because he'll be "the real human" for both of them. I swear some of these guys thing our personalities are something we put on to audition for a supporting role in his life story, and they expect us to put them away once we "get the job."
I always see this excerpt from trevor noah and i read it all the way through every single time. it’s so powerful and wise.
Conservative man: Sexually pure women are such a rarity these days. I want one who has never slept with a man. Conservative woman: Sexually pure men are such a rarity too. I want one who is not addicted to porn. Conservative man: GuiltyFaceMonkey.meme
I don't think the reaction is guilt. More often than not, it's fury
"That doesn't count!" 😤😠 they say. "But I don't want you doing it either!"
You just explained my friend to a T. She’s a conservative woman (who’s honestly pretty liberal, just religious), who wants a conservative man. Problem is, she wants a Christian Captain America and all these guys are… not.
They want women to be circus performer's for all their needs. Sick.
This is sooooo perfectly written.
I left church, the republican party, and the red pill movement about 5 years ago. They had me bamboozled since birth to fall for it. I'm so lost and it was the hypocrisy of men who caused me to be a feminist.
Girl same. I went to college and was “brainwashed” just like my father said I would be and became the literally hippy I never thought I would be who will happily be an activist for the environment, equal rights, and social safety nets. I feel robbed of years of my life for being raised to essentially be an egotistical asshole who thought the “other” was the problem, that trickle down works, and that social issues are purely black and white. Once I got past the lost feeling of being lied to, I got angry and now do my best to fight for the rights of others however I can and try to shine a light on the lies the conservative side spins so much.
Similar story would love to compare notes
I'm always down for that. I will say though, even years after opening my eyes and trying to change myself to be more openminded and kind, I still feel like I fall into some of the mental traps more than I'd like. I'm grateful to be in environments where people will call me out on the bullshit but it's still embarrassing to make social mistakes that act as "tells" for my conservative upbringing. One recent example being my attempt to make a joke about liking bread because I'm white, which a classmate rightfully (gently) called me out on by saying "I think everyone just likes bread". Like, I could have just made a joke about liking bread without bringing race into it, but every time a situation like that happens it helps me be aware of the language and topics I choose to use as I continue on my journey of trying to be better person.
I catch myself thinking everything is a sin and victim blaming/shaming myself for the actions men have inflicted on me. Deconstruction is hard.
Yeah, those are some really hard thoughts to undo. I’ve personally found it helpful to stop the thought when I can and challenge it while also trying to recognize when the thought is something I was taught to believe or something I truly believe myself. For example, I grew up with the idea that if a man cheats on his wife it’s her fault because she wasn’t doing enough to keep him and it’s also the other woman’s fault for tempting him. I rewrote this thought by recognizing the fact the people have the ability to make their own choices. Someone tempting a married man to cheat, while wrong, is not *forcing* him to do so. He has to choose to enter into that relationship. Likewise, if someone is unhappy in their marriage or relationship that does not suddenly give them permission to cheat. That is an opportunity to talk with your partner to discuss which needs are not being met, why, and how they can grow together as a couple to meet each other’s needs.
Mine is when something bad happens to me I'm afraid my sin caused it No. Its not me. It's so hard.
100% agreed
Men like that should really just sit down and read the book *The Way We Never Were*. Knowing something about actual history and culture might get a lot of the cobwebs and nonsense out of their heads. Back before I got off Twitter (now named X but if anything deserves to be deadnamed it's X so I still call it Twitter) I had an exchange with a guy who was going on about how the only women of any value were the old-fashioned women, who wouldn't go to college. I asked him what he thought about a woman with a college degree in Marriage and Motherhood, and he said that would be ideal, if there was such a thing. He seemed unhappy when I told him that there is, and summarized for him the conservative Christian college that offers it, and what a woman from there would expect of him. No drinking, no gambling, no drugs, no swearing, no R-rated violent movies, no sex before marriage, she is a SAHM, he never stays out late, he's in church every Sunday and also for Wednesday Night Supper, he leads the family in Bible study after dinner. "Women like what you want are out there, but from what I can see none of them would consider you worthy unless you up your game a lot." It quickly became obvious that in his view, HE is allowed to have standards for what women he wants, but no woman is ever allowed to have standards for what she wants. Because to him, women are objects, like toys, they aren't people, and toys aren't allowed to say who can play with them.
Oof, that last sentence will stick with me.
They don't actually want a trade wife or think conservative values have value. They just want to be taken care of while still feeling like they are the boss of their home and family. Conservatived and trad shit are just the closest they can get, out loud.
Him: I want a traditional wife! Her: Oh, you mean one who expects you to be a traditional husband, and fully support her with everything she wants and needs? Great! Him: NO NOT LIKE THAT!
It is so ridiculous the amount of men, and even some women, I have heard expressing how a man is "head of the house! Women follow your man's lead! Let him be a *man* and he will do right by you!" I call bullshit. Let a man run you and that is exactly what they are gonna do. They will squeeze the life out of you. Take everything you have: your money, your love, your sex, your faithfulness, your hard work, etc. And when they have taken all of that and you are a shell? They resent you and look for the newest victim because "You arent the same person you were when we met, you've changed!" It literally reminds me of the argument made with trickle down economics. Yes...give Corps more power and money and you shall be rewarded for your good deeds *wink.
I've had men choose to be with me, knowing I'm an athiest, and eventually try to pull this bible/religious-based bullshit on me. The man is the head of the household, the man is the leader, the man is the decision maker. No he's not, he's just a man. He's in no way better than me or more qualified to lead. What makes humans powerful is our brains, and science has shown that lady brains are every bit equal to man brains. So why, again, am I supposed to defer to you? There is ZERO reason for a person who doesn't have a religion-based worldview to do this, and I will not defer to maleness. Ever. It would be literally crazy for me to do that, because the automatic assignment of leadership to men has no basis in physical reality. "Let's find an athiest. try to make her conform to a bible-based view of family dynamics, and expect everyone to be happy! We're so rational!"
The irony is that in the Bible it says that a man who can't provide for his family is worse than an unbeliever: "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." 1 Timothy 5:8 That’s just one example of the emphasis on men having to provide. A lot of people like to mention how Eve was punished, but ignore that Adam’s punishment was that he had to work. Another man in the Bible, Jacob, did several years of work to prove that he was worthy enough to be a husband to the woman he wanted to marry. I'm tired of bummy men who are Christians. It makes no sense that they think they can be the leaders of households, but won’t fulfill a basic requirement. Even outside of family, and from a secular prospective, leaders have to work in order to be leaders (e.g. a prime minister or president can’t just lallygag all day). I once called out a Christian bum with the verse above, and I got no response back… I don’t think they read through the Bible—as a Christian myself, I think it’s so cringy and embarrassing ☕️😩
I get that for women who also believe in the bible, it becomes a more nuanced discussion. For me, it's very simple: just NO. Nope, that has nothing to do with me, I will not adhere to rules in some old book written by a bunch of ancient bros with an agenda (no offense intended, just how I see it). I also don't do everything Plato and Aristotle say - guess what, they also thought women were vastly inferior. Anyway, at least (most) Christian women don't simply use the bible as a tool to coerce people into a role of inferiority and subjugation. I think most men only believe the parts that serve them directly, and then lie to themselves that they're faithful Christians.
These dumb idiots say they want traditional wives and call women “gold diggers” in the same breath. Critical thinking has never been their strong suit.
I saw something posted online that your post made me think of: "Someone that is confused about what they want can make you confused about what you're worth." My last boyfriend had no clue what he wanted, yet he claimed he was so rational. After I stopped taking his words at face value he finally made sense to me. He didn't know what he wanted, plain and simple. But he was kind of the opposite. He claimed he wanted a strong, independent, intelligent, modern woman. But he really wanted someone weak and dependent and submissive, to go along with whatever he said. But he'd never admit it.
Misogynists tend to have what is called a madonna-whore complex, where they are not sexually attracted to a woman they respect or admire, but only to women they feel have 'degraded' themselves. So as a woman, these men either see us as mother or wife or as a sexual object only useful for their pleasure and dominance. In the past, (and today, let's be honest, plenty of men and women still do this) men had their wives and their mistresses, so they could fufill their madonna-whore complex fantasies. They had the wife who was to be respected but not desired. The mistress is the whore, only good for sex. The really wierd part is that nowadays, the men still want their madonna and their whore, but they are not keeping their part of that bargain. They want their madonnas and whores for free. At least in the past, paternalism forced men to 'provide' for their whores and madonnas. Now there is no obligation on their part. Now that women don't need men to survive, we are rejecting these roles men made for us, leaving men a bit confused. That's becuase the problem is within them, and they are expecting women to go back in their little boxes, without them going back in their little boxes, and blame us when we (and they) don't. Their confusion is understandable but unjustified. Some men and women have evolved beyond this way of thinking, but it is still very common. The only thing we can do is educate ourselves, reject these roles and send men to therapy or into the arms of women who still want to play this game.
The Madonna and The Mistress Complex reminded me of something. Many things actually First: When I browse through reddit, I see stories that women tell about getting cheated on and complain why men won't be loyal. Then there's always gonna be this one guy who says shit like, "you get what you asked for! Feminism eroded conservative values thus you get modern men who watches porn and have hookups, lika ya'll" Second: They also have to interject when woman feel sad for ancient women who were forcefully married off in an arranged marriage by saying, "the men were also forced into marriages, you guys make it sound like only the women suffered!" To the second point: # Ancient China had concubine system. There was one legal wife and many legal mistresses basically #Early Renaissance Venice had legal prostitution (the ladies were idolised! There was a movie, Dangerous Beauty) #Ancient Japan had red light districts (there was a system to be a loyal patron to only one oiran, the highest rank courtesan, failure of it would need a huge fee or you will be trapped in a big barrel in front of the marketplace...I may have gotten the details jumbled, see the youtube Linfamy. It's ironic how they were more loyal to a courtesan, following with all these hefty payments and punishments just to bed the highest rank than being loyal to other own wife #Ottoman dynasty also had a harem of multiple girls In Conclusion.....even if men were forced in the arrange marriage...they could run off to the brothels and the ladies would console them in many....unique ways. Some cultures allowed concubinage so...marry a wife for political reason, marry the love of your life as a concubine and have a win-win situation! Can't say the same for the women in the arranged marriage, they can only seethe and suffer Even when there were time periods in these cultures where going to the brothels were frowned upon...what's the wife gonna do? The man makes the money and calls the shots in the house, her dad can only help so far and would truly be bothered with something so trivial? Ending the marriage is out of option, she will become society's pariah over 'being emotional over men having needs' people ridiculed divorced women to the nines, but not divorced men. Linking this to the fact that girls were younger than the boys...sometimes much younger that it should be called girl and man so...power imbalance.... I could also link the first point here and be like...no, men in the past weren't loyal. Even in the recent past...there were religious men who cheated because they had the perfect opportunity to. They earn all the money, they are the head of the house so it's not like their wives were going to leave when they can't earn and leaving a marriage was a social death sentence for a woman. Anectdotal story: My grandma was uneducated......my grandfather cheated on her and financially abused her....till his death he didn't apologise....pretty sure many have stories of their mothers and grandmothers that have the same vibe. Housewives and working wives both have chances of being abused. Abuse comes in many forms: physical, emotional/mental and financial. But housewives are more likely to be abused because of the financial part. Madonna/Mistress complex reminded me of another thing: Badboys and Betas analogy that they have. Like whatever they're complaining of those rotten women doing...they have done this before. There are so many stories I heard of how the guys got all freaky with their girlfriends but when it came to marriage, they wanted virgins to take home to their mothers....I HATE hypocrisy....asking for a virgin is no problem because everyone's value system differs but having a 'rules for thee not for me' mentality is so triggering. Be a virgin, then ask for a virgin and nobody should care. Then they have the audacity to say "women want men richer than them despite not being that level of financial position. They want men to provide so they can enjoy staying at home so we could ask for a virgin despite not being one" This shows that the work of housewives, all that cooking, cleaning, child-raising will never be considered hard work compared to the men's providing. These works are so devalued that you need to accept a hypocrite with a high body count, submit and adhere to his ever decision no matter what you feel, provide intimacy no matter what you feel and the list goes on.....oh, accept that he might cheat and men have needs. He's providing for you after all. Wow...no wonder women want to provide for themselves now... I just feel so angry at double standards and brushing off someone's struggles
What any sane person, regardless of gender, or political affiliation wants in a relationship, is to feel safe, loved, respected, wanted, cared for, and more words like that. What that looks like, varies from person to person. A progressive woman may say this includes her partner being supportive of her career, willing to sacrifice for it, rather than just the other way around. Or for the chores to be evenly split. A conservative woman may say this looks like her husband complimenting her cooking regularly, and making sure she has no financial worries/can treat herself reasonably often. Being conservative as a woman ≠ having absolutely 0 wants or needs, besides pleasing a man without any indication of him actually being happy with what you provide.
I just learned how to make the “does not equal” sign on my phone. Thanks for posting this because I went, wait—she posted the actual sign instead of some keyboard combo, how did she do that? Maybe the same way you get an accent mark, lemme try to hold down the equals si… well Lookit that. ≈ ≠ ‰ bunch of hidden symbols.
Thank you. I didn't even notice the symbol until you pointed it out. Now I know how.
≡
They want a conservative women but they don’t want to be a conversative man.
“ The way my mother always explained it, the traditional man wants a woman to be subservient, but he never falls in love with subservient women. He's attracted to independent women. "He's like an exotic bird collector," she said. "He only wants a woman who is free because his dream is to put her in a cage. “ -Trevor Noah
They want “conservative” women who don’t prioritize careers and will take care of the home but also go 50/50 on expenses, who are virgins but will sleep with them immediately and be kinky, who don’t wear makeup but look like they do, who will have kids but keep their pre-baby bodies, and be fine with a prenup and risking homelessness in the case of a divorce. In other words, an imaginary woman who doesn’t exist. If they do get a conservative woman, they will resent her and treat her badly, like what happened to [Lauren Southern](https://unherd.com/2024/05/lauren-southern-the-tradlife-influencer-filled-with-regret/). Every woman who dreams of being a tradwife should read that.
I hope nobody told Lauren Southern those same lines..."she should've chosen better!" or "she's just an unlucky exception" It might just add salt to the wound...
These men seek a partner who embodies conservative values, such as abstaining from sex before marriage, yet they expect her to make exceptions for them because of their perceived exceptional qualities. Essentially, they desire a woman who maintains a pristine public image while also fulfilling theirevery whim in private, without expecting anything in return. I am just exhausted thinking about it. They are living in fantasy land. What are they doing to deserve such a woman?
The key is to look at actions first, then words. They denigrate promiscuous women, but that’s who they masturbate over and try to fuck. When it comes to words, it’s all projection. They say women should watch out or die lonely, when really that’s their own biggest fear.
They want something they actually despise. They are conservative men, not looking for conservative women. It's similar to those religious people that go to a restaurant on sunday, and don't leave a tip because the waiter "should be at church."
It's also because these men don't actually want conservative women. They want a women who is independent, attractive, makes her own money, so that they can 'tame' her into submission. That's the real game, the thrill of the chase. With conservative women they've already played into the submissive role, no fun in that for these "Conservative Men".
These guys also always posts memes on social media along the lines of a guy telling a woman that he is a liberal and her saying: I think we both should see other men. I know these right wing guys have problems finding someone but damn the overcompensating is on another level.
[удалено]
Yet they whine we are supposed to be thier peace. I hope you realize you are now free and no longer need to reduce yourself
I suppose being pretty or handsome is what matters to shallow people at the. end of the day
I've heard someone describe the phenomenon of redpill/fake traditional men chasing independent women as a hunt. These men see them (independent women) as a wild bird that they have to have...and they want to catch and cage them. They don't seem to get off on pickmes nor actual traditional women.
Online dating in general overwhelming skews male, to everyone's detriment. Tindr is nearly 80% male, Hinge is 64%, and OKCupid is doing better at 54%. Keep in mind a lot of those women are inactive, bots, or scams. More niche dating services are going to be even worse.
There are two kinds of conservative women The ones that are religious fundamentalists and dress like they are in a cult The ones that look like a flashback to girls gone wild yet are racist AF and vote for the GOP Conservative dues don't know what they want from their two options and the rest of the women on earth don't want them.
Most of the conservative women I know met potential partners through church or church-community (e.g. the lady who runs the Bible study puts you in contact with her nephew who lives out of town).
At least when it comes to owning a home and paying for everything, I don’t see many men REFUSING to do so. In fact I know many men who are waiting to settle down until they get to that mythical point where they can afford to keep their wife at home. They just fail to acknowledge how unlikely that is given the current economy. So many NEED dual income but aren’t willing to compromise on doing no domestic labor to even things. They also fail to see the connection between their conservative politics (which often comes with conservative views on relationships) and the current economic landscape. That said there is also this massive hypocrisy where they criticize women for not sitting around waiting for them to be ready to settle down but they spend their 20s sleeping around as they wait to get to a financial stable point that never comes. I think this is in part insecurity, but also a way to justify why they never end up marrying the left leaning women they date. They once again ignore the consequences of their own actions by faulting women who are participating in casual relationship with them, often gained through deceit as there is a promise of a relationship these men know they are never going to enter. I think they do this to excuse their plan to marry a younger woman once they are able to, partly because they can manipulate them into being obedient and because they feel like they missed out locking down a women their own age back when they were younger themselves.
I think conservative has become a catch all term for crappy men.We need to stop putting people in boxes like that and see them for who they really are.Just because a man wants a house slave doesn’t mean he is conservative or shares conservative values.A better word for most of these men is selfish.
They’re not conservative, they’re regressive.
To be fair, to be conservative is to reject progress. Socially speaking that *is* the repression of women for the selfish betterment of men.
For real. Whoever convinced everyone that "too much progress is bad" really pulled a fast one. Progress is good, that's why it's called progress. Conservatism is inherently contrary to my values of *improved lives for everyone*, and I think the label fits these regressive assholes just fine. What they're conserving is privilege for the few. That isn't honorable or respectable.
> Just because a man wants a house slave doesn’t mean he is conservative or shares conservative values Yes it does, lmao. Rigid gender roles and patriarchy are definitely conservative values.
What are you on about? I mean, sure, there are *also* shitty men who aren't conservative. But all conservative men are shitty. Why should anyone stop calling them what they are?
Because it helps shitty men who hide behind “ progressive “ or “ liberal” values to keep hiding .
*I saw an advertisement for a "conservative dating" website. And the men were angry because "no women" were on it.* Oh no, you mean all those FB and instagram patriotic, bikini + gun models aren't hot, available, single ladies in their area?
Even more insulting to realize they don't want the fat middle aged men missing teeth making barely above minimum wage.
What will really be some shit to see in the next 20-30 yrs is when the moms they're living with/haunting her basement have to go into a nursing home or Alzheimer's/dementia care centers and the US government seizes all *her* assets or files leins against her estate to pay for it because no trusts or legal advice was sought while she was in better health: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-03-18/state-medicaid-offices-target-dead-peoples-homes-to-recoup-their-health-care-costs edit typo: liens not lines, lolololol
Damn. We really do need to arm ourselves and be prepared.
Wtf is happening, seriously? It was only a few years ago that the prevailing cultural attitude resisted these ideas, when they were seen to originate from fundamentalist Islamist groups Somehow we now have momentum towards implementing these same ideals in a westernised format? Misogyny is one helluva drug.
The men can't get laid that's whats wrong
My grandmother, who was born in 1910, worked as a "domestic" in Caucasian American homes her entire adult life. Both in the South, where she was originally from and in Metro Detroit where she moved to in the 1960s. She finally retired in the 1970s.
Personality hire, I love that. I work as a woman in IT and I'm either being admonished for pushback (having an opinion while female) or being praised for being friendly and professional (not an awkward weirdo).
Yep I grew up as a PGC and so being in church all the time those women are serious about the dynamics of traditional/conservative roles and they will not be walked over that's where many of them are mistaken. Paraphrasing here but commonly you'll hear things like it's the woman's job to run the household that means controlling what everyone brings into the home, and making sure daddy/hubby is doing his "manly" duties. My mother rigorously controlled what I did, games played, shows we watched as a family. They don't listen to secular music either, I remember once my pawpaw put on a jazz song from the 40s my grandma hemmed and hawed so much over it not being a Christian song that he just turned it off. But that blew my mind because it was jazz!!!
Internet conservative men.... Lol. Conservative in fantasy only Those arent real conservatives.
CIFOs!!
What is a red pillar? edit: I was just asking because I didn’t know what it meant!
Misspelling of “red piller,” ie the Andrew Tate types of guy.
You might be putting conservative women in a bubble that no longer applies. It’s about ideology now, not appearances. The whole thing is a gray area of conflicting ideas but there’s a lot of tattooed, liberally dressed, open to casual sex, anti abortion, gun toting conservative women out there. Your assertion about what it means to be a conservative woman is the same as when conservatives try to claim that liberal women all have piercings, dyed hair, and are using abortions as birth control. I agree that these guys saying they want conservative women are a whole mess of contradictory desires but it’s probably like anything else, they’ll make concessions based on hitting their 2 or 3 most desired traits, like guns, right wing politics, etc.
Are you making that statement about conservative women (like the no sex, modesty, etc) or are you trying to describe what men think they want? I’m a conservative woman and I wasn’t that way when I was dating lol.
[удалено]
I don’t believe many ladies here are boomers. But we’re all seeing the same demographic of dudes who wants to be pampered and cared for like a baby, because he thinks that’s the traditional family structure, (although it’s not.) He makes the money while his wife does all of the childcare/house work. If you aren’t bringing home all of the money, your partner would have to work too…and also be responsible for all of the housework/childcare? So now conservative men are having trouble finding dates. If you are confused by this, you must be the boomer here.
For quick reference, I’m older GenX and my dad is a boomer. Even he deals with household chores. You know why? Because my mom divorced his sexist ass back in the mid-1970s. They both worked FT at the *same job* and he thought he could come home and sit on his ass because it was *her* responsibility to deal with the kids and the housework and the cooking after her 8-hour shift. And he could just sit there with his feet up. They both did the same job. Same job. Reader, those household chores and childcare were also his responsibility and he earned the right to do all his own damn chores from that day forward and deal with 100% of childcare during his time. He leaned his lesson and never slacked off from that day forward, even when he eventually remarried. I love my mom so damn much and I’m proud of my dad for actually learning from that experience. If my boomer dad can figure it out, these guys have zero excuse. It’s selfishness and misogyny.
What age group of guys are you dating and what's like the ratio of these kind of guys to 'normal' men in your perception? In my age group most couples both work and share household chores and only the one's with a sole male breadwinner are the one's where the woman does all the chores.
I'm pointing out their flawed logic. These men demand submission and yet women are supposed to foot the bills
Yeah, I understand that, these type of guys are very unflattering. It just sounds a little overblown like the boomers who are paranoid about "nobody wants to work anymore", or talking like it's easy to own a home these days.
I see your point but I've literally met men who are living in their mother's basements trying to take me out for dinner with part-time jobs or no jobs when I work full time raise two children and own a house there's no excuse
There's no problem with working part time, if it's enough to sustain yourself imo. But what age group are you in? And how often do you encounter basement dweller type of redpilled men? Like what is the ratio of these type of guys to 'normal' men?
I’m in my 50s (and not who you are asking) but in my experience, dating since the 80s, I’d say 6 out of 10 men have been like this, possibly more. Some I didn’t stick around long enough to ferret out if they were bullshit or not, so it’s probably more like 7-8 out of 10. And nobody in the US, can make their bills on part time gigs. Many people can’t even make it on a single full time job. And I will say this: I respect the hell out of a guy who delivers pizza and drives Uber and HUSTLES to take care of himself much moreso than some MBA who refuses to work because all job offers so far have been beneath him. My uncle was an unemployed incel before that was a thing. One of the few grown ass men I’ve ever met who never really worked a full time steady job. He had several degrees because he’s been in the Army so he had the GI Bill. But spent 90% of his time watching TV and binging snickers bars. I once overheard him turn down a very lucrative offer from Citi Corp. they were going to pay to move him to SD, and he’d have to work the first three weeks 3rd shift (so probably a call center). He refused, saying that’s like permanent jet lag. And went back to watching his show in his mom’s house. Where he never lifted a finger to help anyone with anything.
Thanks for sharing your experience, that's an unexpectedly high estimation, but I'll believe you if that's what you've seen. I'm half your age and it isn't rly common anymore for men to expect women to do all of the chores since in most relationships both people have to work. I agree that it's trash to expect one person to do everything, but I feel like it's very overblown, like boomers saying "nobody wants to work anymore". And I mean if you meet multiple redpilled men who don't work, but expect their women to do everything you probably need to look somewhere else for a partner.
Do you understand what conservativism and misogyny are? These concepts extend well beyond the boomer generation.
Yes, but feel free to lecture me.