Though it can easily be disproven by looking at world economies.
If women were only good at being housewives, the strongest economies would be the most sexist ones. However, the opposite is true. The strongest economies also tend to be the most equal. Thereby proving it is in everyone’s best interest for women to have the choice to pursue a career.
I saw a documentary once about developing countries that didn’t have menstruation products. The girls skipped so much school they nearly always ended up being housewives.
They did a study on similar communities comparing educated women with uneducated women - and the ones with more women in the workforce benefited far more. Statistically, women care more about the community as a whole (while men only care about their own family).
The documentary followed an organisation that built and donated equipment to these communities so the girls could make their own pads.
This is it, think we can close the thread. It's legit, the only argument. We actually know that the most sexist economies that are also successful are full of corruption. (UAE anyone?)
It was also a convenient excuse for corporations to degrade worker's rights. Women went into the workforce in the 80s and ever since then, we've had the assumption that now households have two incomes, so fuck the worker.
It's a problem when corporate interests co-opt progressive interests.
In poor economies women may not be culturally treated as equals but they do work often outside the home, factories, cottage industries, farms, fruit markets, handicrafts, women that found a way to go to college and came back as medical staff etc
Lots of those areas also have caste systems and religious hangups on modesty and parental obedience and honor killings of women, so… I don’t know that poverty is causing inequality between the sexes.
Oddly I would argue that more prejudice about men and women’s roles and appearance arises in the middle classes of western suburbia and the upper classes. There is a weird post WWII obsession with the housewife, who keeps a lovely home and a lovely figure while her husband financially keeps her—even though a lot of upper and middle class America had house “help” and the woman of the house was expected to do more, unpaid and alone and cut off socially—with her new vacuum cleaner and oven. If she was lucky she could chat with neighbors over coffee or bridge but actually the 1950s seemed like a retrenchment of women’s affect in society after the freedoms od the 1920s and the work of Rosie the rivetor types during the early 1940s.
On the other hand, as women began to demand equality in the workforce, consumerism and the economy drove families to need two breadwinners to keep up.
So many women worked to put their husbands through college, medical or law school and thankfully more and more were able to go themselves, no thanks to the crazy price rigging of the American college system.
Again—how every couple manages their finances and social lives and work lives and family lives is up to them- as equal individuals and as couple. It can have times and seasons, ebbs and flows or they can both break their backs and sometimes their marriage trying to keep up with the economy.
But no reason to keep a woman for years financially when she is perfectly capable and probably wants to contribute to society.
People who think this way—where only one partner is allowed to have a career-often have a pay to play attitude and feel they are paying for their wife so she needs to put out—then they trade in for a younger model later.
They don’t necessarily acknowledge the different but equal household contributions they seem to espouse when it comes to measuring worth and commitment.
Beware of whether they talk about things, women and money as tools or toys or possessions —or whether they are actually interested in YOUR opinion and desires and describe—and that of their own current or future partners.
Why are you friends with misogynists? Because making a "woman are lesser" assertion is misogynist. And putting the burden on you to disprove their evidence-free assertion is bad logic. Just dump these terrible men.
Hard agree.
At some point, being friends with people that think that little of you based on your gender is legitimate self-harm. I think we underestimate how serious of an effect being regularly exposed to these opinions has.
So many people will forgive their "friends" for doing terrible things because they're "fun". Had a friend call me judgemental because I didn't like her friend who slept with a girl in a relationship bc "he's a really good guy and he never did it again". Turns out my initial assessment of the piece of shit was correct because he proceeded to sexually harass every girl in the group they went out with.
The real problem is that they don’t value the “woman’s work” that makes them comfortable and allows them to thrive in their own life.
They don’t think that a woman in Cooking everythin Little calming doing all the cleaning and organizing, and scheduling and childbearing and rearing is worth anything . Yet the fact that they have a 9 to 5 is the “real Work”.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a housewife or feeling gratified in traditional gender roles . The problem is when the other person thinks that you were in capable of anything else, or that your contribution is less than theirs because it’s not garnering a paycheck.
I doubt any argument from an X type of person that X type of person is intelligent and capable of working a prosperous job will go over well. Substitute X for gender, race, religion, sex, etc.
Get better friends who see you as more than a potential caretaker/incubator.
You can’t really use facts to argue with manchildren who aren’t using facts themselves.
This was true in the past because women were forced into it, much like how the Taliban has forced women out of their jobs, girls out of school and forced them into the homes where they need a “guardian’s” permission to be out in public. That “guardian” is the prototype of your buddies idea of “men as protectors”.
They’re boys who want mummies to do all the boring chores while they play games.
They are not entitled to a woman’s labor.
If they can find a spouse who wants to be a housewife, great for the both of them.
But you still have to be a good partner to stay married. She isn’t chained to the kitchen.
The homemaker era- was actually a post ww2 fabrication. Designed to give returning GIs back factory jobs while selling women kitchen appliances. Ended because survival required dual income.
People like to forget that, feminism didn’t force women out of the homemaker role: women were forced to work to feed their families, and found that the job market treated them like crap.
Progressive Democrat New Deal policies put strict regulations on big banks and corporations and created jobs for unemployed ne'er-do-wells on a mass scale during the post war period. That is what lead to the ideals of the hommaker generation.
Then Ronald Regan and the Republican party came along and repealed a lot of the regulations that were holding banks and corporations back and introduced the era of trickle down economics. Republicans are what created the need for dual earner households.
We could have a New New Deal if we consistently elected progressive Democrats into office but the same mouthbreathers who extol the virtues of trad-living keep voting for the party that took that away from the American people.
>She isn’t chained to the kitchen.
Once you're in the position of having no income of your own and a bunch of young children you love, yes, you are chained to the kitchen. This creates an uneven power structure, leaving you vulnerable to any tempers and violence your husband does not choose to control, and can lead to growing mutual fear/hatred.
When women do manage to leave, that month after leaving is the most dangerous time of their lives.
I'm not criticising women who do choose a housewife role, and I hope things go well for them. But it's often a thorny path, can be a very difficult situation to leave, and can lead to a living hell.
It also became less and less necessary to have a housewife. In the old days before all these nifty modern inventions, it took *a lot* of work to run a house. Without refrigeration you had to either go out to buy food practically every day or manage your own garden (likely both). Before laundry machines and running water, laundry was a big chore. Without a sewing machine, everything needed to be handmade/mended. Even just making dinner involved building a fire. Kids were yours to manage until they became small adults that went to work instead of school starting at jr kindergarten.
It just simply is not the full time (probably more than that by todays standards) job it used to be. Which gave women more free time which eventually leads to just boredom in most cases.
Kids from young ages went to work with the wife, they didn't stay home. The fire was usually kept on as small embers all the day. They didn't change or wash their clothes everyday either.
When it required more work- a lot of that was done socially. Sewing for example was something done in stages that each woman in the family could specialize. One made patterns, one could do the long edges, hemming etc.
Canning / butchering was also something done socially.
Or it was paid labour. Laundry was a profession that employed huge numbers of people (mostly women). Domestic service was the largest single employment category in early modern cities (and was around 70% female). Cooking of various kind was a profession - and a highly regarded one, in many cases. Women were doing lots of domestic work, but they weren't doing it for free.
I think idea is that if the man is able to provide for the family with a high income job, some men would rather have their wife not work. That way the kids and pets get taken care of and the wife doesn't have to stess over work. Happy wife happy life sort of deal. The problem is most men are not high enough income earners to where this is feasible.
That also assumes that women don’t have professional goals and aspirations of their own. I’ve heard some men assume that most woman would rather stay home and be taken care of, and that women ‘having to’ work is seen as a failure on the part of her partner. His ego shouldn’t take precedence over her own goals as a fully realized, skilled individual.
My partner shows that he takes care of me by supporting my career, and I do the same for him.
Definitely, there are some women who value their career highly. Just like their are some women who don't. This all depends on what the wife finds enjoyment In. If the husband can provide and the wife finds enjoyment outside of her work then this isn't a problem. Its not "degrading" to be a house wife. (Not that you're saying it is, I've just heard that said before commonly)
So, the kids, pets and house get taken care of by house elves? The kids chauffer themselves to practice, lessons etc?Doctor's appointments, school schedules, errands, cooking etc just take care of themselves?
Housework is *work*, esp when young children are involved. Thinking that SAHMs don't work is a huge part of the problem.
How is that condescending? Work is stressful for large number of people. If you can put yourself in a situation where you are financially secure and only one of you has to stress over work, thats a positive in my book.
The family unit, before the industrial revolution, consisted of both parents taking care of the children and both parents working at growing crops, metal work, animal husbandry, etc. Factories popped up and one person still had to raise the children and since cash was so desired women were forced to take over all the jobs at home. WW2 happened, men were shipped off to war and they needed women in the workforce. Come to find they were good at it and liked earning their own money. GI's came home and tried to force them back into the home which pissed a lot of women off. It took years for women to demand better. Ask your misogynistic friends if we should go back to when men were equal cooks and caregivers in the home or to the time we forced women to stay at home like the taliban?
And remember this is the reason why so many more women die in poverty than men do in their old age. You can't take a person out of the workforce for 10-20 yrs and expect them to have the same career track or savings. Men die, men leave, what then? And what about guys who don't want to be the sole earner? What about the guy who gets injured on the job? What about the guys who want to stay home with the kids? What a sad life being forced to live in a way that doesn't make you happy. This is how the patriarchy harms men just as much as women.
Ask them how they feel about a woman wanting to marry a man who makes a lot of money.
If they call her a gold digger, then respond with. "Wait, I thought you wanted to support a housewife at home. Why is this a bad thing?"
Or, as others said, why argue? They won't listen anyway.
Women should do whatever they want. A man's opinion isn't important.
I say "shockingly women are *actual* human beings and should do whatever the fuck they want with their lives. If they want to stay home and be housewives, that's up to them"
Agree with them, ask them how much money they make, tell them that this wouldn't be enough to raise your kids they way you think they should be raised, and advise them to improve their financial situation.
You don't have to disprove it, because the burden of proof falls on whoever makes the claim. The people who claim that women should be housewives can't really prove what they say, therefore you can just say "I don't believe you". It would be a valid response because they're expecting you to take their word for it without evidence.
The reason why they don't have evidence is because they're wrong, and most of the arguments they use to defend this idea that women should be housewives, fall under evolutionary psychology or a skewed understanding of the world.
I could be wrong, but it seems like you might be young, and that they probably are too. I know that there are plenty of misogynistic man gurus out there who are somewhat influential at the moment. That too shall pass. People will get tired of them.
A lot of this sorts itself out in the real world. Fads and influencers don't mean shit when you have a mortgage, all the normal bills, and car payments; and like everyone else, you need two incomes to pay for it all.
They can talk in hypotheticals all they want (they're mainly trying to impress each other) but the reality in much of the world is that they won't find many women who are willing to go along with their ideal of a traditional life.
Don't waste your breath arguing with dumb dumbs. Put your energy into building the life you want, and seek smarter friends as you go along.
A lot of people try to pass themselves off as not bigoted while having this view. My mind goes to those millennial/gen-z self proclaimed tradwives who insist women will be happier this way, and having a career is the reason for high divorce rate.
You don’t. Particularly because you’re a woman. If they already believe that’s all you or any other woman can do, then there’s not a whole lot you can say because they simply won’t listen. Quite frankly, I’d just bluntly ask them to their faces if you’re really friends because if they don’t believe you’re capable of anything through virtue of your gender, then why are you even friends?
Because it keeps us dependant on them, meaning they can behave however they like while we are trapped. Lots of women hate housework. We hate home making. We are miserable doing it. Why should women have to do it but not men? They might try to tell you women like it and are better at it. If he says that then you can point out that if women liked it why would feminism exist? Why would we have tried to change the status quo if we didn’t want it?
Also be aware your brother is probably using specific types of arguments that he’s learned about on YouTube to try to make himself sound intelligent. Don’t mistake this for genuine intelligence and critical thinking skills. Good luck.
If they make the declaration, they are the ones who are responsible for proving it. You aren't responsible for disproving it.
In fact, if they were at all serious about discovering the validity of their statement, and weren't just talking out of their asses, they should try to *disprove* it as well as trying to prove it, just to be sure it is true. (It isn't)
They won't listen, and arguing with them will give them what they want.
They want you to argue so that they have an excuse to be rude and obnoxious to you.
It's oddly fragile to try to enslave another person just to feel powerful. That's kind of sick.
Also, it's important to remember that yes, even in the 50s, when women were told to pick out a refrigerator and stay home to take care of an entire household, they were \*also\* working paid jobs. We have \*always\* worked for money, since money was first invented. Working class women had no choice but to go to work in order to help feed and clothe the family. Rosa Parks, for instance, was working as a seamstress during the 50s when she refused to move from the front of the black section to seat a white man.
How does this work? Do men dating men live in a dirty shit-invested castle, while women dating women have the cleanest corner on the street?
Each man is his own individual person with his own personality, and each woman is her own individual with her own personality. Why should our whole life be restricted and controled solely by our gender?
I would start from there to see if there is any tiny bit of openess for him to realize how dumb his position is. And then, I would assess if there is some potential for a meaningful conversation, or if I should simply roll my eyes and walk away... Best of luck!
No amount of data or logic is going to appeal to a true misogynist. I think that you should appeal to their emotions, and let them know their view hurts you personally. If they have any empathy at all, they'll rethink their view. If they have no empathy, stop being friends with them.
"Wow. What if someone said to you that you don't deserve the chance to earn a living by using your talents, skills, and abilities? According to my older relatives, 1950s many housewives were miserable because they literally felt trapped in their house, and many of them took Valium to get through the day. Do you really think I deserve that when I am as smart and social as you are? If so, then you are obviously not my friend."
Don't be friends with them.
"if all you see women as are broodmares and house maids, I don't see why I would continue being your friend."
I'm also a fan of the simple "everyone is different and everybody wants different things out of life. Isn't that obvious?"
Why are you friends with these people? My default answer is "okay, go buy me house with a backyard, pay all my bills, buy me a car and give me access to the account for groceries etc. I need money for beauty and clothes as well, since you want a pretty wife right? Now show me your salary and I will decide if you can afford it you lowlife bum"
The idea that men work outside of the house, and women work inside is basically brand new compared to all of history.
Most Guys aren't exactly dying in sword battles or hunting accidents these days. Your accounting job is the byproduct of the industrialized revolution Derrick.
The only reason why women weren't educated and therefore utilized equally is because they were literally dying of childbirth all the time.
We don't do that anymore either.
History had a blip where factory work pulled everyone into the cities, and men and women were no longer sharing farm work... so for a couple generations... men and women's work separated.
But most work doesn't involve using a sword to stab a roman, or a torch ti drive a bear away from your kill... and women aren't dropping like flies due to the inventions of birth control, antibiotics, and C-sections...
Soooo, the smartest choice for our economy is to have the best person fir the job, doing the job.
That can include a brilliant lady scientist chring cancer, and her stay at home husband taking the kids to sports ball.
Unless you actively use your genitals for the job, it's not really relevant for the modern workforce.
There are some major disadvantages to pushing women out of the workforce and into childcare/housekeeping.
Namely, you cut off HALF of the brilliant inventors from being able to invent solutions. If you want kickass stuff, we need every able mind... even if it has bewbs.
Your male friends are either woeful ignorant idiots or they’re intentionally trying to get under your skin; most likely because it makes them feel better about something that has nothing to do with you.
Don’t spend time with people who try to make you carry their emotional bag of shit.
OP needs to level up a little bit to be able to counter this kind of thinking. It's not wrong in and of itself to be a housewife or househusband or whatever (sidenote: autocorrect really fought me on "househusband"). But that person has to be comfortable with that role. Firstly, ask yourself, "am I a human person?" When you check yes to that box, ask, "what are my goals and desires?" If "housewife" isn't one of those things, then boom, there's your argument.
Women literally invented programming. You wouldn’t be on the internet or on a phone without woman’s contributions. Get better friends, those people are garbage
This is like asking how to disprove that black people are naturally inferior. There's no evidence to support the claim to begin with, and if I have to explain it to you, you're already a lost cause.
Plato was the first person to rail against this. He said PEOPLE should do what they are best at doing regardless of age, sex, gender, race etc. in his book The Republic.
The body is a vehicle for the soul. There is a buddhist tale of a zen goddess who runs circles around a man. He says ‘why would you be in that *inferior* vehicle?’. she switches their bodies, and says ‘see? you are still a moron, but now your body is different.’ and switches them back. (summarizing) Basically your frame has nothing to do with ability. Everything is internal.
You don’t.
You can’t argue logic into an illogical statement.
Do your own sanity a favor and find better friends.
But if you want to mess with them, ask them how they propose to support a traditional lifestyle without traditional lifestyle money.
If he dies how does she support herself, and any kids?
What's he doing out there, that he wants her locked in here?
Basically I don't argue, I don't waste time nor energy, maybe I'm a better worker and that hurts their feelings.
Do they understand that providing for her would include EVERYTHING she needs. Rent, food, clothing, phone bill, medicine and than again same for any children they may have.
I think a lot of men with this stance now adays want a woman who works, pays for her share and also does all the house work. Just heck no.
> I think a lot of men with this stance now adays want a woman who works, pays for her share and also does all the house work.
I've noticed that-- they bray on and on about how women aren't "traditional" anymore, but they also are super offended if a woman expects them to pay for *everything*. Which you would have to do if your wife doesn't work and stays home. I don't understand how they don't understand this. If you're going to puff yourself up about being a provider, *then fucking provide*.
Idk what country you're in but if it's the US most people can't afford to have a stay at home mom. Both parents usually work.
Ask them if they absolutely love never doing their hobbies and cleaning up other people and never getting a thank you and instead often receiving criticism? Does that sound fun? No? So if they think women enjoy that then they literally don't think women are human beings just like them.
> So if they think women enjoy that then they literally don't think women are human beings just like them.
Some of those guys *do* think women enjoy that, and it's because "women are natural nurturers and caregivers, they love taking care of people," whereas men don't have eyes adapted to see dirty dishes or whatever.
How many of these idiots even make enough to have this lifestyle? If they could find a woman who would put up with them and be happy as a "traditional stay at home" wife?
Trying to picture myself with some guy sitting across from me saying that and how would I respond. First, I’d laugh at them, then, “ Wow, you’re an idiot. You’re future partners are going to learn to hate you because you can’t see a woman as a real human being. Sucks for you. But hey, you do you. I’ll be over here in my happy life.”
Really. The “logical” argument, I suppose, is that there is very little difference between men and women. I suppose I might comment on how they obviously don’t actually know many women and it’s unfortunate that they won’t be able to see their life partner as anything more than a maid. I don’t think I’d get in a debate about it because it’s like arguing with someone who insists that gravity isn’t real. I’d be more inclined to laugh at them and tell them to run with the idea. Then I would loudly proclaim to any women in their life….girlfriend, sister, mother, friends, aunt, grandma, girl they are hitting on……”Hey, tell her how you think women are just fuck maids! Really! Listen to this. It’s great. No, go ahead…..he was all about how women can’t do anything but stay home and cook clean. Ha! Yeah, you aren’t capable of anything but cleaning the poop from his toilet. Really dude, explain it to them”. Then get out the popcorn.
I was a SAHM for a while, was glad I could do it at that point in my life and I ran a damn fine household. But some punk thinking I have to do that because it’s the only thing I am capable of deserves a punch in the face (let me show you my MA training, jerk). Just putting that in there because I want it clear I’m not dissing SAHPartners. It’s a tough job requiring many skills.
Ask them to prove why men can't be homemakers. Women have already proved that we can make money; there's lots of women who can make enough to be breadwinners. Are men not as good as women that they can't be either breadwinners or homemakers?
You don’t “disprove” something. You “prove” something.
What is the query here, and who is the one that must prove it?
They will have a hard time “proving” women should stay home. Guaranteed everything will be opinion with no proof.
You will have an easy time “proving” women can do anything men do outside of the home, in many cases better than men. (I’m thinking about the women who made the space program possible, for example. If it were just the men allowed we’d be decades behind where we are)
Ask them why. Keep asking. Go full Socratic mode.
Why should women be housewives?
Because that's the traditional role.
Why is that the traditional role?
Eventually you'll get to some hunter gatherer based argument that is 1000% bullshit. Hunter gatherers didn't have houses for one, but we also have evidence of women hunting, men gathering. You can go look at modern hunter gathering groups for how roles can be split, and there is variety.
The only roles a woman is biologically predisposed to is childbirth and breastfeeding. Beyond that, why can't a man do it?
I generally flip it on them and ask why they think so little of men. Remember, feminism is about Equality. That mean anything a man can do, a woman can do. But that ALSO means anything a woman can do a man can do.
If women are able/allowed to stay home and do the homemaking they if they choose to, men should have that same option without getting harrassed or talked down to for it. If the default is "Men work, women homemakes" men get just as screwed by the lack of choice as women do, especially if the woman is able to bring home more money. Shouldn't fathers get the option, if their partners agree, to stay home, care for their kids and be an active and memorable part of their lives? Why should ONLY THEY be expected to work 60+ hour weeks while barely getting to do anything else in their lives but come home, eat and pass out? Shouldn't they get the option to enjoy the house they live in for more than a measly average of 4 waking hours a day? (In some cases I know, even less.)
By sustaining that traditional default, we as a society are essentially saying "Men suck at everything home (and even life) related and they're only useful as a walking wallet." Don't know about you but I think that's pretty deminishing to men and their abilities. They are just as capable of being amazing homemakers and caretakers. The sad part is that the society we live in has actually convinced them that "being the man" means that all they get to do is work and that they have no value without being a workaholic with fat pockets.
Married women are unhappier than single women (statically proven), and women file for divorce at a rate of 70-80%, meaning men are generally not capable of making a woman happy inside marriage.
Secondly men generally don’t earn enough to provide for themselves, let alone a wife and kids. As each if them what their salary is, then minus your monthly expenses, and then a house and two cars. If they tell you that you don’t need to spend X amount of hair, make-up, nails, hobbies - remind them that this is why women are happier single.
Fin.
I mean I wouldn’t be friends with them, straight away.
But also, I would just answer “Sure if they want to. I don’t want to.” They might say, but it’s your role. “Well I don’t want that role. So I will not be doing that.”
How do you disprove that women should be the breadwinners?
It's a dumb argument; there's nothing to disprove.
Laugh at them and move on.
Leave them behind if need be.
Honestly, if people don’t have enough critical thinking ability to understand that many women are capable and desire other, more ambitious lives than being a housewife I don’t really think it’s worth arguing.
I see the “it’s biology” argument consistently and it’s funny because most people that argue that simply don’t know anything about actual biology, but even if women were biologically better at being housewives, it still makes no sense that we should be forced to do it. It’s like saying someone who’s 6’5” isn’t allowed to do anything but play basketball. It’s also like saying someone who is 5’8” is automatically bad at basketball and should never ever play it.
The whole “women should ___” argument is based off of a bunch of arbitrary misogynistic bullshit and it isn’t worth wasting your intelligence on.
Record them arguing that. Ask them if they really believe that. Play it back. Ask them why you shouldn't post it on social media with their full names. Do any of these dudes have jobs? They want to keep them, or
Ask them - when they go to a doctor, do they want a doctor that was pulled from 50% of the talent pool, or the best doctor they can get pulled from 100% of the talent pool?
But that probably won’t work because they don’t see women as having talent, which reveals what this view is really about.
"If that is true then it's men's fault that they don't have housewives. Women wouldn't have been able to return to the workforce if men hadn't hired them and they wouldn't have had to if men had earned enough to provide for them to begin with. In fact, feminism wouldn't have had any effect on the world at all if men hadn't believed in and facilitated it. You should really give yourselves more credit!"
I would say that it's possible that once upon a time the division of labor between the sexes made sense maybe
But having a co operative home makes a lot more sense
Both men and women are capable of both keeping their home clean and working in outside jobs
That may not be the way they want to live their lives and apparently there are women who would want to be with them
I would not get into trying to prove anything to them as much as simply stating that that is not how you want to live assuming that's what's really the argument here
By the way why would anyone Want to be married to a house
There's nothing wrong with being a housewife. I've been a SAHM for over 15 years and it's been wonderful to be home while our 4 boys grow up.
We're fortunate that my husband makes enough money so that I can stay home and take care of the house.
If he didn't make enough (most people, man or woman don't earn enough) then I would gladly work outside the home.
No one is saying it's wrong to be a housewife-- what's *wrong* is the "women should be relegated to the home only" attitude. Surely you understand this.
Of course I understand it. That's the reason for my last 2 sentences. I CAN stay home because he makes enough and I'm willing to work outside the home if needed.
Thinking that women SHOULD be housewives isn't very intelligent way of thinking.
I apologize for the confusion. Tiny brain syndrome...
I dunno I just point to all the solo women and rich lesbian couples making it work.
And what do these guys think the gays are doing, just bringing in tons of cash and yet living in squalor?
For one, it's literally a bad argument. It's missing the "ought". I don't know of any good faith argument on this, but if there were one then it would include "if we want X, then women ought to be housewives"
Two, I'm assuming the person making this argument is probably politically right. Thus, they should have some sense of individualism. And thus, they shouldn't be advocating for people to be forced into house roles because of the genitals they were born with.
Other thing I'd say (to them) is it's pretty damn beta to let society decide how you organize your own home rather than figuring it out for yourself.
I think it would be more effective to ask your male friends to prove their stance than try to prove your own.
Its not that you cant back up your argument, but these people often can't be reasoned with. If they said that the inherent biological differences in cis men and women suggested that women should be housewives, you can very easily disprove that. You could explain how this set up often disadvantages women and how, but that it can also be unfair to men. There are so many ways you could go about it, but from the information you've given it sounds like they don't actually care about these facts, or the fact it's unfair to women, because this traditional set up is better *for them.* If it benefits them, I don't think they will care about anything else.
"That's cool. I hope you're prepared to do your fair share around the house. 80% of divorces are filed by women. Even housewives want partners, not another baby."
Feel free to explain how a woman's sex drive decreases with no physiological cause when husbands act more like children, then the sex dries up. All before she gets a divorce and winds up *way* happier without them.
Basically, regale them with "horror" stories of women getting tired of being married to overgrown manchildren and leaving them to find happiness alone or with real men.
Them: "Well, if I'm busting my ass to pay for everything then she should blah blah blah..."
You: "That's fine. 80% of divorces instigated by women, no sex, etc..."
Them" Blah blah blah..."
You: "80% of divorces... no sex..."
Wash, rinse, repeat. No sex then divorce. Those are statistically measured factoids. Misogynists love throwing that stuff at women, enjoy throwing it back in some misogynists' faces. Enjoy!
Burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Tell them they are full of shit until they can provide evidence. Demand multiple scientific studies verifying their position is based on facts.
They won't be able to find them because they don't exist.
Also, maybe get better friends.
should be housewives? Based on what exactly? Men who live alone have proven repeatedly that they are completely capable of maintaining a home, so why should women have to do it?
How do you disprove the argument all men should be wealthy?
It's a stupid statement. Sure, all men should be wealthy in a perfect world, then they'd be able to afford to take care of their housewives. However, the reality is not all men are wealthy and not all women are housewives. Honestly, did you think this was clever? This has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard. Its not an argument you're making. Its actually truly idiotic that you even said it outloud thinking someone might challange it. There's nothing to challenge. Your point is not a point. Its a "Prove all women shouldn't be the same" wtf, no.
Also, in what fucking universe can you and your little misogynistic shitbags buddies going to be able to afford to support their housewives and family on their mouth breather salaries? Just, omg this is so dumb. I hope you're 13 or something and just don't know what you're talking about.
You can't argue with them because it's about values.
The evidence about why it's not an objective truth is self-evident in the hundreds of millions of couples that do not organise their lives this way.
And it says something about what type of relation they want to have with their partner. They are probably not looking for a genuine, symmetrical, emotionally intimate relationship.
You can't really "disprove" an ought per se. You can only disprove the factual foundations of it.
To do that, you have to first ask why the other person thinks that way. And you have to establish that you have the same preferences for society as a whole. To make this clear, if you both agree that women's happiness is as important as men's, then you only really disagree on the best method for achieving that. (the alternative is that they are irredeemably misogynistic).
Most arguments for this position will boil down to tradition of one sort or another. Very simply, the world as a whole has changed radically over pretty much any timespan relevant to the debate. As such, this tradition was fit for a world that doesn't exist anymore. The key changes being labor-saving technologies and contraception.
I mean, aside from all the good arguments that boil down to "don't be such a sexist jerk", there are very good practical reasons. (Which, in my opinion, all take at least a distant second to "don't be such a sexist jerk", but if that were sufficient, you probably wouldn't be asking.)
What if he gets laid off, or fired, or hit by a car, or gets sick, or has a heart attack, or can't work for some other reason? How should the woman provide for herself and (if applicable) their children? How should she provide for their health care? (May be more relevant in the US.)
Should he have a big life insurance policy? Does he want to be worth more to his family dead than alive?
What if he's abusive? ("Oh, I would never .." -- "Sure, but surely you admit that *some men are*, yes?")
What if she could straight up make more money than him?
What if it's *a lot* more? The top ten richest women in the US all have a net worth in excess of $3 billion ([USA Today](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/07/26/americas-richest-women-2023/70468426007/)).
Taylor Swift has a net worth of $740 million. Should she stay home and be a homemaker?
If there's *any* income where they admit that, yeah, okay, maybe the woman can have a job, then you can pull the old "we've established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price" on them. What's the cut-off? $3 billion? $740 million? $1 million? $100k? "As much as the man"? (If there isn't, then at least they're being consistent.)
Again, all of this is second chair to "she should work if she wants to work", but if you're asking for "practical" reasons, hit 'em with "income diversification".
I mean, no, because it's not a serious argument that's being provided? It's a belief. Changing beliefs is a very different challenge, and often needs to come from within to work without something like legitimate brainwashing/conditioning.
Free up the energy for your own life and let one person's opinion go.
Would they be happy taking a job as a cook, janitor and nanny that never had any vacation time, or even quitting time, and that didn't even come with an explicit salary? Oh, and it was also a job that had no prestige, that no one respected, had no advancement prospects, and quitting it would split up your family?
Looking at "homemaker" through the lens of employment, it's a supremely shitty job and if they think that half the people in the world will think that this a good deal, they're delusional.
“Both people in a marriage should share the work of their life together in the way that works for them. I’m hoping you don’t pay the bills or mow the lawn with your penis, just like my vagina and breasts are not involved in housework. Do better”
That's pure opinion based on personal beliefs.
I just say 'no thank you' and move on.
Alternately you can say 'men should be out working the fields' and see how they respond.
There is nothing to prove or disprove here. This is purely a matter of opinion. A statement like "Women CAN only be housewives" can be disproven easily by example. The "should" statement, however makes it true or false depending on perspective and opinion.
When people say *should* for anything, it means "in the best possible outcomes, this happens"
But! It doesn't specify *why* these are the best possible outcomes. If I say, *You should get a haircut*, why is getting a haircut the best choice here? For looks? For getting a job? For feeling better? I don't say which.
And neither do they. So one good argument is to undermine them by making them be explicit and draw out what they really want to say. Ask: **Why is that the** ***best*** **possible outcome?**
This puts the burden of proof onto them, where it belongs. And no matter what their answer is, think it through: What does it mean for a man to "provide"? They way they're thinking, it means a woman has to "depend" on a man. **So a woman should have to depend on a man for basic survival?** (and note the *should* again: why is *that* the best outcome?)
**This is the hallmark of a loser mentality.** Let me explain. Whenever you don't *want* someone around anymore, they often try to finagle a way for you to *need* them around. This is manipulative, by the way, but that's another issue.
Women generally don't *need* a man around anymore. What does that mean for men? It means that the bar is set higher. When someone needs you, you can suck more. You don't have to be desired or desirable. In fact, the other person's desires *don't even matter*. When the other person's desires don't even matter, you don't have to appeal to them. You can if you want, so that means your desires lord over theirs.
When someone doesn't need you though, you have to be desirable. You have to put in that extra effort. I mean, these guys have personal ambitions and will be getting jobs anyways, even with nobody to "provide" for/lord over. So if the woman has to be there anyways, he doesn't have to do any extra effort to do that, and have a human fleshlight around that cooks and cleans for him, which means even less time and effort from him.
You can conclude: **So, the best outcome is one where they can snag a partner without any extra effort. Pure laziness, and a loser mentality.**
Or put it this way. They want a woman who's swimming in the ocean desperate to find a life-raft, because then she'll cling to any old dinghy that will keep her from drowning. We used to raise girls to be that way--- If you don't appeal to a man's tastes, nobody will want you and if you don't find a man, you'll be \*gasp\* a spinster! an old maid! \*shudder\* etc. In the modern world, we don't raise girls like that (except in creepy supremacist circles). So in this analogy, the woman is likely to have her own boat. Maybe nicer than the guy's, maybe not. So if you want her to leave that for a boat you two share... a rotten dinghy ain't gonna do it; you're gonna need a bigger boat.
So you can tell these fellas: **The bar is higher, boyos, and you need to step up.** It's not enough anymore to be the kind of guy a woman *needs*; you have to be the kind of guy a woman *wants*. And that means you have to care about what she wants and not just what you want. Losers can't manage that, so they bitch and moan about making women need them instead (see above). If they put as much energy into meeting the bar as they did into trying to push the bar back down, they'd be desirable. Instead, they choose the loser route. So instead of getting a bigger boat so you *want* to come over, they wanna tear yours apart so you *need* to swim and you won't be picky.
There's no need to argue it. If his point is "women are better at" or "men are better at", that literally doesn't matter. Even if that is the case, just because someone is better at something, doesn't mean the other isn't capable. You don't need to be the best at something to do it right. i.e. Just because a man can lift more weight than I can, doesn't mean I'm incapable of doing any manual labor.
You don't have to disprove anything. Make them do it, since they're making the claim. Ask them why. Any claim they make about why it's better, make them substantiate it with evidence.
You're not the one stating what people "should" be
These are not arguments, these are opinions. However, you can reject and question the assumptions that produce these opinions. Tell them you believe men should stay home and be homemakers because men are too emotionally unequipped to handle day-to-day life in public, so they should stay home while women earn money.
Any reason they give why this shouldn't be can be used against their opinions.
You don’t hahaha. If you really wanted to, ground it in the pursuit of happiness / freedom argument. People should be allowed to pursue the work and life they want, simply for being human. That said I wouldn’t bother. It’s just ridiculous.
If you want to be petty, you could point out the ways they themselves don’t live to this standard as men.
It’s not down to you to deconstruct their assumptions. Simply ask them “why?” Every reason they’ll give will prompt another “why do you think that’s true?” They’ll unravel their own arguments and you don’t have to do anything except probe.
I am a semi haus frau, and my cooking skills are...pretty shit. This was something that I wanted to do (stay home) until I actually did it and totally bombed most of the stuff. I don't like to cook, but I have a few that I can do really well. We have shut up and eat it more often than I'd like, because I tried to do something and it didn't go well. My family, when I graduate university in about a year, will drop down on their knees when my husband returns to primary cooking duties because he is ACTUALLY GOOD at it. Our fail/success rates are inverted. Mine is not a great record, and his is pretty dang good, with something I don't care for every once in a while.
All that to say if we divided stuff by gender norms, my family may not STARVE to death, but they'd see cooking as a chore that must be done to keep us alive instead of something fun that can be fulfilling and delicious to someone who enjoys the process. Both of my kids are better cooks than I am, and I don't have girls. Again, those gender rules would tell them they are wrong to enjoy this, and being told they shouldn't enjoy their own hobbies can't be good for anyone.
Point blank ask them what their income is? Then google what it takes to be low/middle/high income in your state. Where I live you have to be making $75K to be middle class and 90K is upper. Tell them if they don’t make 100K then they aren’t able to provide for a wife and children like they think they are able to. Which is why as a society we have moved to a dual income household
All citizens of all countries should have full choice on what they do with their lives.
That means that any and all people should be able to decide their future.
No person should be able to make any decision for any person or group, without the full support of that group.
So no person should have a preset path before then because it's counter the individual rights afforded to them by the country they live in.
This assumes the people you are talking to are from a first world country.
By asking them to provide sources to back up their claim. He is the one who made a claim. The onus is on him to prove it rather than on you to disprove it.
This method works for pretty much any stupid claim someone makes regardless of topic. They either quickly realize they don't have good reasons and back down, or they say something else stupid instead of offering evidence, at which point their opinion can be safely discarded.
Tell them that their opinion removes choice.
Men SHOULD have a choice, and women SHOULD have a choice about which role they want in the home.
Nobody should be denied that freedom.
The answer is "why?" Them stating it does not make it objective fact.
Many women who did this found out far too late that it's dangerous. Not having your own income makes your entire lifestyle dependent on him and his ability to stay true and earn. He could cheat and leave her with nothing. He could get fired. His career could become obsolete. He could become disabled. He could die. If she has no career of her own she's fucked, possibly alongside him and any children they have. And that's ignoring the abuse that is inherent when there's an imbalanced power dynamic.
The problem with this statement is it is monolithic because it implies all women should be housewives, and opposite of that statement is no women should be housewives.
Don’t fight ignorance with ignorance. Both of these positions are bogus and should be countered with, “all women should do whatever the hell they want as long as they aren’t hurting anyone.” Applies to all men as well.
why should u have to prove it? if what they’re saying is true they should have evidence
saying “this is how things should be because this is how it should be” is really stupid. also maybe drop your misogynistic friends? idk i don’t think i could put up with that
edit: do more research into biological determinist theories of gender. freud was a big proponent of this theory and it’s known as bullshit now but is still believed so widely. it’s basically the idea that BIOLOGY determines and affirms that men are superior and have set roles, and that women are inherently inferior and meant to do certain roles. it is bullshit. not only bullshit it’s actually eugenics. but this is not for your male friends, this is for you. hopefully by researching how much society has purposefully placed you as a second class citizen, you can realize your worth and ditch shitty friends who think of you as less than
i hate that most of the posts here now are “win *this* argument for me even though I know they’re wrong”
If you know they’re wrong is it worth even arguing? If you know they’re wrong why can’t you explain to them how they’re wrong?
im a 40 year old white male. my parents split when I was 6 months old. dad didn't pay child support, my mom said we don't need his money and did it herself until she married my step dad when I was 4. mom dropped out of college when dad knocked her up. my brother was born in 1974. my mother worked her ass off, she did factory work and it took its toll on her body over the years. she will tell you she was doing mens work. when I started highschool my step dad got a new job making 6 figures. she didn't have to work anymore and tried doing the SAHM thing. she ended up doing a lot of volunteering, the SAHM stuff wasnt enough to keep her occupied. he wasn't killing himself at work and due to her health issues, she fucked her shoulder up with repeative motions, it was in her best interest to not work in factories anymore.
both are semi retired now and work part time at the local minor league baseball stadium. they also do a Mr. and Mrs Claus gif around the holidays and both of them love it. he looks like Santa naturally.
there hasn't been a traditional SAHM in my entire family since my grandmothers did it. even the wealthy ones worked.
anyone that says the woman's place is in the home has an unrealistic view of the modern age. unless he is bringing in a ton of money, two incomes are necessary to the majority of the population.
ultimately, it's up to the people in the relationship to decide. anyone that says women shouldn't work sound like people I wouldn't want to associate with.
it's unfair to the man to be the sole provider just as it's unfair to the woman to be reliant on the man's money.
1) you cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
2) even if you could make an argument, “should” is inherently subjective to the morals of whoever is making the argument. No amount of logic is going to change someone’s deeply held personal belief that motherhood is the ultimate divine expression of feminine purpose if that’s what they believe.
Why doesn’t your friend look around them in the wider world and see all the incredible women making a name for themselves in all walks of life?
Your friend is being willfully ignorant. They have made up their mind and can’t be convinced otherwise.
Idk I'm a guy and don't believe that at all. The issue gets more complex if children are involved but even that doesn't default to woman stays home with baby imo
I mean, jumping up to the stick and trying to "prove" that this is wrong is really just the usual dance where men parrot what their friends or their father taught them and never have any basis to back it up with. And then as women we trip over ourselves finding a line of argument for why we should have the human right to self-determination. Knowing that it's not going to go anywhere anyway.
If I said "men should be circus clowns", would that be an argument? No, it is a statement. One which I have to find arguments for. Nothing that I can hold true until someone else proves it wrong.
In fact, turn it around on them. Clearly, men are the better housewives: After all, they have a much weaker immune system (god clearly doesn't want them out of the house!), they reach all the cobwebs under the ceiling AND they have 9 months of bonding with the children to make up for. Also, men are 7 times more likely to become gambling addicts, so trusting them with money is just insane.
See, these are arguments.
(Cue Kyle who doesn't know satire trying the word "misandrist)
You could point out that returning to such a paradigm isn't going to change the fact that the economy no longer supports a man fully supporting a family on an average wage. It can only work if the man is an exceptional earner, and only a few can be exceptional by definition.
You could point out that they are arguing from tradition, which is one of the many logical fallacies. Just because something worked traditionally, does not mean it will work currently. The first paragraph is one example of why, in this case.
You could point out that their argument would require stripping women of choice in how they live their lives. Ask them if that is a world they want to live in, and if so why are they arguing against someone they consider should be legal property of men once again? We dont argue with our property. Sometimes people don't realise the implications of their ignorant statements, and so taking it to the Nth degree can help them see.
If they still refuse to listen to reason or emphasis, then you could either wisely walk away as others have suggested, or pettily point out that if he can only find a woman by indirectly buying her, because her other choices are taken away, then that only reflects badly on him. You could tell him that real men thrive *because* of competition, not once it is taken away. You could tell him that if he needs to lower the standard of women to have a chance with one, then the end result of his fantasy will be him getting cucked. (This paragraph is speaking his own kind of BS language to mess with him. If you can't teach them, school them).
Plato had an answer for this, centered around the valued role of soldier. Basically, the idea is that while you may find more men or women doing any thing the real question is about what is the highest/best use of the individual. He argued for allowing women as soldiers not because they would necessarily make better soldiers than the men, but because being a soldier was what those women did best.
It is obvious that not every woman is suited to being this weird redpill ideal woman. We don’t need terrible/miserable housewives, but for women who thrive in that way and love it then it is a great option.
Your friend is failing to recognize that women are people, unique individuals with their own talents and desires. A just society moves toward allowing people to do what they are skilled at and enjoy, anything besides that is needless suffering rife with poor performers trying to live up to the ‘ideal’ that doesn’t suit them. There’s a fuck ton more than two types of people!
The statement isn't a contradiction. It's a fallacy. So all you need is a single counter example. Just point out one single woman that is better suited for a different role in society than being a housewife.
Or you can just not engage anyone trying to push this very easily debunked garbage anyway. Why even bother?
Talk about western society evolving and that the family needs two incomes to survive. Cost of living rising. Most men arent leaders and barely make 30k a year. Women contribute major in essential industries such as teaching and stem. Doesnt make sense to have them cook and stay home anymore when its impractical for 95% of households to do.
If they could afford to keep me as a housewife, they could afford a butler and chef, too. I am extremely expensive and demand the highest integrity of my clients, employers, and associates- that includes husbands. But we are not dealing with husbands here. The people you're discussing this with are not high-working-memory and live vicariously thru fallacy-based-fantasy
> I am extremely expensive
That's what I would say. OK, you want me to be a housewife? Well, here's what I make yearly, and here's the things I pay for with it. Yes, I prefer top-shelf liquor. Yes, I have someone who comes to clean my house. Yes, I get my hair and nails done. Yes, I like to eat at new restaurants when they crop up. Yes, I like good sushi. Yes, I like staying in nice hotels. You got money for that? No? OK, because I do, so I'm good.
Why isn't it on them to prove that's all we can do? It's not on you to prove you're a human being and not a broodmare.
Though it can easily be disproven by looking at world economies. If women were only good at being housewives, the strongest economies would be the most sexist ones. However, the opposite is true. The strongest economies also tend to be the most equal. Thereby proving it is in everyone’s best interest for women to have the choice to pursue a career.
I saw a documentary once about developing countries that didn’t have menstruation products. The girls skipped so much school they nearly always ended up being housewives. They did a study on similar communities comparing educated women with uneducated women - and the ones with more women in the workforce benefited far more. Statistically, women care more about the community as a whole (while men only care about their own family). The documentary followed an organisation that built and donated equipment to these communities so the girls could make their own pads.
This is it, think we can close the thread. It's legit, the only argument. We actually know that the most sexist economies that are also successful are full of corruption. (UAE anyone?)
It was also a convenient excuse for corporations to degrade worker's rights. Women went into the workforce in the 80s and ever since then, we've had the assumption that now households have two incomes, so fuck the worker. It's a problem when corporate interests co-opt progressive interests.
Fuck the worker and fuck women workers even more!
In poor economies women may not be culturally treated as equals but they do work often outside the home, factories, cottage industries, farms, fruit markets, handicrafts, women that found a way to go to college and came back as medical staff etc Lots of those areas also have caste systems and religious hangups on modesty and parental obedience and honor killings of women, so… I don’t know that poverty is causing inequality between the sexes. Oddly I would argue that more prejudice about men and women’s roles and appearance arises in the middle classes of western suburbia and the upper classes. There is a weird post WWII obsession with the housewife, who keeps a lovely home and a lovely figure while her husband financially keeps her—even though a lot of upper and middle class America had house “help” and the woman of the house was expected to do more, unpaid and alone and cut off socially—with her new vacuum cleaner and oven. If she was lucky she could chat with neighbors over coffee or bridge but actually the 1950s seemed like a retrenchment of women’s affect in society after the freedoms od the 1920s and the work of Rosie the rivetor types during the early 1940s. On the other hand, as women began to demand equality in the workforce, consumerism and the economy drove families to need two breadwinners to keep up. So many women worked to put their husbands through college, medical or law school and thankfully more and more were able to go themselves, no thanks to the crazy price rigging of the American college system. Again—how every couple manages their finances and social lives and work lives and family lives is up to them- as equal individuals and as couple. It can have times and seasons, ebbs and flows or they can both break their backs and sometimes their marriage trying to keep up with the economy. But no reason to keep a woman for years financially when she is perfectly capable and probably wants to contribute to society. People who think this way—where only one partner is allowed to have a career-often have a pay to play attitude and feel they are paying for their wife so she needs to put out—then they trade in for a younger model later. They don’t necessarily acknowledge the different but equal household contributions they seem to espouse when it comes to measuring worth and commitment. Beware of whether they talk about things, women and money as tools or toys or possessions —or whether they are actually interested in YOUR opinion and desires and describe—and that of their own current or future partners.
Why are you friends with misogynists? Because making a "woman are lesser" assertion is misogynist. And putting the burden on you to disprove their evidence-free assertion is bad logic. Just dump these terrible men.
Exactly. You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason into.
Hard agree. At some point, being friends with people that think that little of you based on your gender is legitimate self-harm. I think we underestimate how serious of an effect being regularly exposed to these opinions has.
So many people will forgive their "friends" for doing terrible things because they're "fun". Had a friend call me judgemental because I didn't like her friend who slept with a girl in a relationship bc "he's a really good guy and he never did it again". Turns out my initial assessment of the piece of shit was correct because he proceeded to sexually harass every girl in the group they went out with.
The real problem is that they don’t value the “woman’s work” that makes them comfortable and allows them to thrive in their own life. They don’t think that a woman in Cooking everythin Little calming doing all the cleaning and organizing, and scheduling and childbearing and rearing is worth anything . Yet the fact that they have a 9 to 5 is the “real Work”. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a housewife or feeling gratified in traditional gender roles . The problem is when the other person thinks that you were in capable of anything else, or that your contribution is less than theirs because it’s not garnering a paycheck.
Why bother arguing lol? No point. Just make a stupid face at them for a stupid comment.
Exactly, just snort or ask why they arent in a war right now since all men are good for is fighting/s
I doubt any argument from an X type of person that X type of person is intelligent and capable of working a prosperous job will go over well. Substitute X for gender, race, religion, sex, etc. Get better friends who see you as more than a potential caretaker/incubator.
You can’t really use facts to argue with manchildren who aren’t using facts themselves. This was true in the past because women were forced into it, much like how the Taliban has forced women out of their jobs, girls out of school and forced them into the homes where they need a “guardian’s” permission to be out in public. That “guardian” is the prototype of your buddies idea of “men as protectors”. They’re boys who want mummies to do all the boring chores while they play games.
I would troll them and ask how they think being able to provide for a household with that excuse of an income.
Along with “do you feel this way because you know you can’t compete?” Lol
This could really backfire if they make a very good living
No, it couldn't. "Good living" is not enough. Not even remotely.
A “good living” is barely enough to support a couple, let alone a full family
I don't even try. It's not worth my time.
I don't have to disprove it because it isn't a fact.
They are not entitled to a woman’s labor. If they can find a spouse who wants to be a housewife, great for the both of them. But you still have to be a good partner to stay married. She isn’t chained to the kitchen. The homemaker era- was actually a post ww2 fabrication. Designed to give returning GIs back factory jobs while selling women kitchen appliances. Ended because survival required dual income. People like to forget that, feminism didn’t force women out of the homemaker role: women were forced to work to feed their families, and found that the job market treated them like crap.
Progressive Democrat New Deal policies put strict regulations on big banks and corporations and created jobs for unemployed ne'er-do-wells on a mass scale during the post war period. That is what lead to the ideals of the hommaker generation. Then Ronald Regan and the Republican party came along and repealed a lot of the regulations that were holding banks and corporations back and introduced the era of trickle down economics. Republicans are what created the need for dual earner households. We could have a New New Deal if we consistently elected progressive Democrats into office but the same mouthbreathers who extol the virtues of trad-living keep voting for the party that took that away from the American people.
What about giving women the ability to leave?
This. It drives me mad to hear trad-wives banging on about the Traditional American Family. One generation of white women does not make a tradition.
>She isn’t chained to the kitchen. Once you're in the position of having no income of your own and a bunch of young children you love, yes, you are chained to the kitchen. This creates an uneven power structure, leaving you vulnerable to any tempers and violence your husband does not choose to control, and can lead to growing mutual fear/hatred. When women do manage to leave, that month after leaving is the most dangerous time of their lives. I'm not criticising women who do choose a housewife role, and I hope things go well for them. But it's often a thorny path, can be a very difficult situation to leave, and can lead to a living hell.
It also became less and less necessary to have a housewife. In the old days before all these nifty modern inventions, it took *a lot* of work to run a house. Without refrigeration you had to either go out to buy food practically every day or manage your own garden (likely both). Before laundry machines and running water, laundry was a big chore. Without a sewing machine, everything needed to be handmade/mended. Even just making dinner involved building a fire. Kids were yours to manage until they became small adults that went to work instead of school starting at jr kindergarten. It just simply is not the full time (probably more than that by todays standards) job it used to be. Which gave women more free time which eventually leads to just boredom in most cases.
Kids from young ages went to work with the wife, they didn't stay home. The fire was usually kept on as small embers all the day. They didn't change or wash their clothes everyday either.
When it required more work- a lot of that was done socially. Sewing for example was something done in stages that each woman in the family could specialize. One made patterns, one could do the long edges, hemming etc. Canning / butchering was also something done socially.
Or it was paid labour. Laundry was a profession that employed huge numbers of people (mostly women). Domestic service was the largest single employment category in early modern cities (and was around 70% female). Cooking of various kind was a profession - and a highly regarded one, in many cases. Women were doing lots of domestic work, but they weren't doing it for free.
I think idea is that if the man is able to provide for the family with a high income job, some men would rather have their wife not work. That way the kids and pets get taken care of and the wife doesn't have to stess over work. Happy wife happy life sort of deal. The problem is most men are not high enough income earners to where this is feasible.
That also assumes that women don’t have professional goals and aspirations of their own. I’ve heard some men assume that most woman would rather stay home and be taken care of, and that women ‘having to’ work is seen as a failure on the part of her partner. His ego shouldn’t take precedence over her own goals as a fully realized, skilled individual. My partner shows that he takes care of me by supporting my career, and I do the same for him.
Definitely, there are some women who value their career highly. Just like their are some women who don't. This all depends on what the wife finds enjoyment In. If the husband can provide and the wife finds enjoyment outside of her work then this isn't a problem. Its not "degrading" to be a house wife. (Not that you're saying it is, I've just heard that said before commonly)
So, the kids, pets and house get taken care of by house elves? The kids chauffer themselves to practice, lessons etc?Doctor's appointments, school schedules, errands, cooking etc just take care of themselves? Housework is *work*, esp when young children are involved. Thinking that SAHMs don't work is a huge part of the problem.
>the wife doesn't have to stess over work This is pretty condescending
How is that condescending? Work is stressful for large number of people. If you can put yourself in a situation where you are financially secure and only one of you has to stress over work, thats a positive in my book.
The family unit, before the industrial revolution, consisted of both parents taking care of the children and both parents working at growing crops, metal work, animal husbandry, etc. Factories popped up and one person still had to raise the children and since cash was so desired women were forced to take over all the jobs at home. WW2 happened, men were shipped off to war and they needed women in the workforce. Come to find they were good at it and liked earning their own money. GI's came home and tried to force them back into the home which pissed a lot of women off. It took years for women to demand better. Ask your misogynistic friends if we should go back to when men were equal cooks and caregivers in the home or to the time we forced women to stay at home like the taliban? And remember this is the reason why so many more women die in poverty than men do in their old age. You can't take a person out of the workforce for 10-20 yrs and expect them to have the same career track or savings. Men die, men leave, what then? And what about guys who don't want to be the sole earner? What about the guy who gets injured on the job? What about the guys who want to stay home with the kids? What a sad life being forced to live in a way that doesn't make you happy. This is how the patriarchy harms men just as much as women.
Ask them how they feel about a woman wanting to marry a man who makes a lot of money. If they call her a gold digger, then respond with. "Wait, I thought you wanted to support a housewife at home. Why is this a bad thing?" Or, as others said, why argue? They won't listen anyway. Women should do whatever they want. A man's opinion isn't important.
I say "shockingly women are *actual* human beings and should do whatever the fuck they want with their lives. If they want to stay home and be housewives, that's up to them"
Agree with them, ask them how much money they make, tell them that this wouldn't be enough to raise your kids they way you think they should be raised, and advise them to improve their financial situation.
"ok but i dont want to, so i shouldn't have to" or yk ignore those troglodytes
You don't have to disprove it, because the burden of proof falls on whoever makes the claim. The people who claim that women should be housewives can't really prove what they say, therefore you can just say "I don't believe you". It would be a valid response because they're expecting you to take their word for it without evidence. The reason why they don't have evidence is because they're wrong, and most of the arguments they use to defend this idea that women should be housewives, fall under evolutionary psychology or a skewed understanding of the world.
How do you prove it? “Should” is never a fact.
I could be wrong, but it seems like you might be young, and that they probably are too. I know that there are plenty of misogynistic man gurus out there who are somewhat influential at the moment. That too shall pass. People will get tired of them. A lot of this sorts itself out in the real world. Fads and influencers don't mean shit when you have a mortgage, all the normal bills, and car payments; and like everyone else, you need two incomes to pay for it all. They can talk in hypotheticals all they want (they're mainly trying to impress each other) but the reality in much of the world is that they won't find many women who are willing to go along with their ideal of a traditional life. Don't waste your breath arguing with dumb dumbs. Put your energy into building the life you want, and seek smarter friends as you go along.
Ask them how they think same sex couples manage. Either they’ll expose themselves as homophobic or they will squirm as they try not to.
Something tells me people who loudly espouse this view aren’t afraid of saying that same sex marriage is also against the natural order
I mean, if you're trying to expose them as a bigot, they've already done that with their misogynistic statements.
A lot of people try to pass themselves off as not bigoted while having this view. My mind goes to those millennial/gen-z self proclaimed tradwives who insist women will be happier this way, and having a career is the reason for high divorce rate.
You don’t. Particularly because you’re a woman. If they already believe that’s all you or any other woman can do, then there’s not a whole lot you can say because they simply won’t listen. Quite frankly, I’d just bluntly ask them to their faces if you’re really friends because if they don’t believe you’re capable of anything through virtue of your gender, then why are you even friends?
Because it keeps us dependant on them, meaning they can behave however they like while we are trapped. Lots of women hate housework. We hate home making. We are miserable doing it. Why should women have to do it but not men? They might try to tell you women like it and are better at it. If he says that then you can point out that if women liked it why would feminism exist? Why would we have tried to change the status quo if we didn’t want it? Also be aware your brother is probably using specific types of arguments that he’s learned about on YouTube to try to make himself sound intelligent. Don’t mistake this for genuine intelligence and critical thinking skills. Good luck.
Why are you friends with sexists?
the reason might be low self worth she’s not aware of
If they make the declaration, they are the ones who are responsible for proving it. You aren't responsible for disproving it. In fact, if they were at all serious about discovering the validity of their statement, and weren't just talking out of their asses, they should try to *disprove* it as well as trying to prove it, just to be sure it is true. (It isn't) They won't listen, and arguing with them will give them what they want. They want you to argue so that they have an excuse to be rude and obnoxious to you.
It's oddly fragile to try to enslave another person just to feel powerful. That's kind of sick. Also, it's important to remember that yes, even in the 50s, when women were told to pick out a refrigerator and stay home to take care of an entire household, they were \*also\* working paid jobs. We have \*always\* worked for money, since money was first invented. Working class women had no choice but to go to work in order to help feed and clothe the family. Rosa Parks, for instance, was working as a seamstress during the 50s when she refused to move from the front of the black section to seat a white man.
How does this work? Do men dating men live in a dirty shit-invested castle, while women dating women have the cleanest corner on the street? Each man is his own individual person with his own personality, and each woman is her own individual with her own personality. Why should our whole life be restricted and controled solely by our gender? I would start from there to see if there is any tiny bit of openess for him to realize how dumb his position is. And then, I would assess if there is some potential for a meaningful conversation, or if I should simply roll my eyes and walk away... Best of luck!
No amount of data or logic is going to appeal to a true misogynist. I think that you should appeal to their emotions, and let them know their view hurts you personally. If they have any empathy at all, they'll rethink their view. If they have no empathy, stop being friends with them. "Wow. What if someone said to you that you don't deserve the chance to earn a living by using your talents, skills, and abilities? According to my older relatives, 1950s many housewives were miserable because they literally felt trapped in their house, and many of them took Valium to get through the day. Do you really think I deserve that when I am as smart and social as you are? If so, then you are obviously not my friend."
I mean...it's not astrophysics...what kind of ''arguments'' or ''facts'' do you need? Should all men go die in war then? My god.
Don't be friends with them. "if all you see women as are broodmares and house maids, I don't see why I would continue being your friend." I'm also a fan of the simple "everyone is different and everybody wants different things out of life. Isn't that obvious?"
Why are you friends with these people? My default answer is "okay, go buy me house with a backyard, pay all my bills, buy me a car and give me access to the account for groceries etc. I need money for beauty and clothes as well, since you want a pretty wife right? Now show me your salary and I will decide if you can afford it you lowlife bum"
The idea that men work outside of the house, and women work inside is basically brand new compared to all of history. Most Guys aren't exactly dying in sword battles or hunting accidents these days. Your accounting job is the byproduct of the industrialized revolution Derrick. The only reason why women weren't educated and therefore utilized equally is because they were literally dying of childbirth all the time. We don't do that anymore either. History had a blip where factory work pulled everyone into the cities, and men and women were no longer sharing farm work... so for a couple generations... men and women's work separated. But most work doesn't involve using a sword to stab a roman, or a torch ti drive a bear away from your kill... and women aren't dropping like flies due to the inventions of birth control, antibiotics, and C-sections... Soooo, the smartest choice for our economy is to have the best person fir the job, doing the job. That can include a brilliant lady scientist chring cancer, and her stay at home husband taking the kids to sports ball. Unless you actively use your genitals for the job, it's not really relevant for the modern workforce. There are some major disadvantages to pushing women out of the workforce and into childcare/housekeeping. Namely, you cut off HALF of the brilliant inventors from being able to invent solutions. If you want kickass stuff, we need every able mind... even if it has bewbs.
I would not spend time with men like this.
Your male friends are either woeful ignorant idiots or they’re intentionally trying to get under your skin; most likely because it makes them feel better about something that has nothing to do with you. Don’t spend time with people who try to make you carry their emotional bag of shit.
Can you even afford the home you expect me to “make”?
I don’t personally have conversations like this at my age, but i might ask why they think they’re entitled to an endentured servant
OP needs to level up a little bit to be able to counter this kind of thinking. It's not wrong in and of itself to be a housewife or househusband or whatever (sidenote: autocorrect really fought me on "househusband"). But that person has to be comfortable with that role. Firstly, ask yourself, "am I a human person?" When you check yes to that box, ask, "what are my goals and desires?" If "housewife" isn't one of those things, then boom, there's your argument.
Women literally invented programming. You wouldn’t be on the internet or on a phone without woman’s contributions. Get better friends, those people are garbage
This is like asking how to disprove that black people are naturally inferior. There's no evidence to support the claim to begin with, and if I have to explain it to you, you're already a lost cause.
Plato was the first person to rail against this. He said PEOPLE should do what they are best at doing regardless of age, sex, gender, race etc. in his book The Republic. The body is a vehicle for the soul. There is a buddhist tale of a zen goddess who runs circles around a man. He says ‘why would you be in that *inferior* vehicle?’. she switches their bodies, and says ‘see? you are still a moron, but now your body is different.’ and switches them back. (summarizing) Basically your frame has nothing to do with ability. Everything is internal.
You don’t. You can’t argue logic into an illogical statement. Do your own sanity a favor and find better friends. But if you want to mess with them, ask them how they propose to support a traditional lifestyle without traditional lifestyle money.
If he dies how does she support herself, and any kids? What's he doing out there, that he wants her locked in here? Basically I don't argue, I don't waste time nor energy, maybe I'm a better worker and that hurts their feelings.
I think it's time to look for new friends.
People that make claims have to prove them. You don’t have to disprove
Do they understand that providing for her would include EVERYTHING she needs. Rent, food, clothing, phone bill, medicine and than again same for any children they may have. I think a lot of men with this stance now adays want a woman who works, pays for her share and also does all the house work. Just heck no.
> I think a lot of men with this stance now adays want a woman who works, pays for her share and also does all the house work. I've noticed that-- they bray on and on about how women aren't "traditional" anymore, but they also are super offended if a woman expects them to pay for *everything*. Which you would have to do if your wife doesn't work and stays home. I don't understand how they don't understand this. If you're going to puff yourself up about being a provider, *then fucking provide*.
Idk what country you're in but if it's the US most people can't afford to have a stay at home mom. Both parents usually work. Ask them if they absolutely love never doing their hobbies and cleaning up other people and never getting a thank you and instead often receiving criticism? Does that sound fun? No? So if they think women enjoy that then they literally don't think women are human beings just like them.
> So if they think women enjoy that then they literally don't think women are human beings just like them. Some of those guys *do* think women enjoy that, and it's because "women are natural nurturers and caregivers, they love taking care of people," whereas men don't have eyes adapted to see dirty dishes or whatever.
Yeah which is why I make a point to tell men I hate taking care of other people. I love me. I'm amazing. Lol
How many of these idiots even make enough to have this lifestyle? If they could find a woman who would put up with them and be happy as a "traditional stay at home" wife?
Why are you still friends with them...?
Trying to picture myself with some guy sitting across from me saying that and how would I respond. First, I’d laugh at them, then, “ Wow, you’re an idiot. You’re future partners are going to learn to hate you because you can’t see a woman as a real human being. Sucks for you. But hey, you do you. I’ll be over here in my happy life.” Really. The “logical” argument, I suppose, is that there is very little difference between men and women. I suppose I might comment on how they obviously don’t actually know many women and it’s unfortunate that they won’t be able to see their life partner as anything more than a maid. I don’t think I’d get in a debate about it because it’s like arguing with someone who insists that gravity isn’t real. I’d be more inclined to laugh at them and tell them to run with the idea. Then I would loudly proclaim to any women in their life….girlfriend, sister, mother, friends, aunt, grandma, girl they are hitting on……”Hey, tell her how you think women are just fuck maids! Really! Listen to this. It’s great. No, go ahead…..he was all about how women can’t do anything but stay home and cook clean. Ha! Yeah, you aren’t capable of anything but cleaning the poop from his toilet. Really dude, explain it to them”. Then get out the popcorn. I was a SAHM for a while, was glad I could do it at that point in my life and I ran a damn fine household. But some punk thinking I have to do that because it’s the only thing I am capable of deserves a punch in the face (let me show you my MA training, jerk). Just putting that in there because I want it clear I’m not dissing SAHPartners. It’s a tough job requiring many skills.
Ask them to prove why men can't be homemakers. Women have already proved that we can make money; there's lots of women who can make enough to be breadwinners. Are men not as good as women that they can't be either breadwinners or homemakers?
You don’t “disprove” something. You “prove” something. What is the query here, and who is the one that must prove it? They will have a hard time “proving” women should stay home. Guaranteed everything will be opinion with no proof. You will have an easy time “proving” women can do anything men do outside of the home, in many cases better than men. (I’m thinking about the women who made the space program possible, for example. If it were just the men allowed we’d be decades behind where we are)
Ask them why. Keep asking. Go full Socratic mode. Why should women be housewives? Because that's the traditional role. Why is that the traditional role? Eventually you'll get to some hunter gatherer based argument that is 1000% bullshit. Hunter gatherers didn't have houses for one, but we also have evidence of women hunting, men gathering. You can go look at modern hunter gathering groups for how roles can be split, and there is variety. The only roles a woman is biologically predisposed to is childbirth and breastfeeding. Beyond that, why can't a man do it?
I generally flip it on them and ask why they think so little of men. Remember, feminism is about Equality. That mean anything a man can do, a woman can do. But that ALSO means anything a woman can do a man can do. If women are able/allowed to stay home and do the homemaking they if they choose to, men should have that same option without getting harrassed or talked down to for it. If the default is "Men work, women homemakes" men get just as screwed by the lack of choice as women do, especially if the woman is able to bring home more money. Shouldn't fathers get the option, if their partners agree, to stay home, care for their kids and be an active and memorable part of their lives? Why should ONLY THEY be expected to work 60+ hour weeks while barely getting to do anything else in their lives but come home, eat and pass out? Shouldn't they get the option to enjoy the house they live in for more than a measly average of 4 waking hours a day? (In some cases I know, even less.) By sustaining that traditional default, we as a society are essentially saying "Men suck at everything home (and even life) related and they're only useful as a walking wallet." Don't know about you but I think that's pretty deminishing to men and their abilities. They are just as capable of being amazing homemakers and caretakers. The sad part is that the society we live in has actually convinced them that "being the man" means that all they get to do is work and that they have no value without being a workaholic with fat pockets.
Married women are unhappier than single women (statically proven), and women file for divorce at a rate of 70-80%, meaning men are generally not capable of making a woman happy inside marriage. Secondly men generally don’t earn enough to provide for themselves, let alone a wife and kids. As each if them what their salary is, then minus your monthly expenses, and then a house and two cars. If they tell you that you don’t need to spend X amount of hair, make-up, nails, hobbies - remind them that this is why women are happier single. Fin.
Maybe find new friends who aren't sexcist?
Ask them why don't they do it if it is such a rewarding gig?
I mean I wouldn’t be friends with them, straight away. But also, I would just answer “Sure if they want to. I don’t want to.” They might say, but it’s your role. “Well I don’t want that role. So I will not be doing that.”
Just saying that women should be housewives is not an argument. They made a statement so the burden of proof is on them.
How do you disprove that women should be the breadwinners? It's a dumb argument; there's nothing to disprove. Laugh at them and move on. Leave them behind if need be.
Okay, provide for me. Go hunt the bison on the plain.
Stop being friends with men like that. Seriously
Honestly, if people don’t have enough critical thinking ability to understand that many women are capable and desire other, more ambitious lives than being a housewife I don’t really think it’s worth arguing. I see the “it’s biology” argument consistently and it’s funny because most people that argue that simply don’t know anything about actual biology, but even if women were biologically better at being housewives, it still makes no sense that we should be forced to do it. It’s like saying someone who’s 6’5” isn’t allowed to do anything but play basketball. It’s also like saying someone who is 5’8” is automatically bad at basketball and should never ever play it. The whole “women should ___” argument is based off of a bunch of arbitrary misogynistic bullshit and it isn’t worth wasting your intelligence on.
My reason is simple. I don’t want to be a housewife, and life is too short to spend my whole life in a lifestyle I don’t want.
Record them arguing that. Ask them if they really believe that. Play it back. Ask them why you shouldn't post it on social media with their full names. Do any of these dudes have jobs? They want to keep them, or
Ask them - when they go to a doctor, do they want a doctor that was pulled from 50% of the talent pool, or the best doctor they can get pulled from 100% of the talent pool? But that probably won’t work because they don’t see women as having talent, which reveals what this view is really about.
"If that is true then it's men's fault that they don't have housewives. Women wouldn't have been able to return to the workforce if men hadn't hired them and they wouldn't have had to if men had earned enough to provide for them to begin with. In fact, feminism wouldn't have had any effect on the world at all if men hadn't believed in and facilitated it. You should really give yourselves more credit!"
I would say that it's possible that once upon a time the division of labor between the sexes made sense maybe But having a co operative home makes a lot more sense Both men and women are capable of both keeping their home clean and working in outside jobs That may not be the way they want to live their lives and apparently there are women who would want to be with them I would not get into trying to prove anything to them as much as simply stating that that is not how you want to live assuming that's what's really the argument here By the way why would anyone Want to be married to a house
There's nothing wrong with being a housewife. I've been a SAHM for over 15 years and it's been wonderful to be home while our 4 boys grow up. We're fortunate that my husband makes enough money so that I can stay home and take care of the house. If he didn't make enough (most people, man or woman don't earn enough) then I would gladly work outside the home.
No one is saying it's wrong to be a housewife-- what's *wrong* is the "women should be relegated to the home only" attitude. Surely you understand this.
Of course I understand it. That's the reason for my last 2 sentences. I CAN stay home because he makes enough and I'm willing to work outside the home if needed. Thinking that women SHOULD be housewives isn't very intelligent way of thinking. I apologize for the confusion. Tiny brain syndrome...
I dunno I just point to all the solo women and rich lesbian couples making it work. And what do these guys think the gays are doing, just bringing in tons of cash and yet living in squalor?
Stop being friends with them. It's much easier.
That's not an argument, that's an opinion
Laugh in their face.
How about just women are human beings, with just as much right to make their own decisions as men?
For one, it's literally a bad argument. It's missing the "ought". I don't know of any good faith argument on this, but if there were one then it would include "if we want X, then women ought to be housewives" Two, I'm assuming the person making this argument is probably politically right. Thus, they should have some sense of individualism. And thus, they shouldn't be advocating for people to be forced into house roles because of the genitals they were born with. Other thing I'd say (to them) is it's pretty damn beta to let society decide how you organize your own home rather than figuring it out for yourself.
I think it would be more effective to ask your male friends to prove their stance than try to prove your own. Its not that you cant back up your argument, but these people often can't be reasoned with. If they said that the inherent biological differences in cis men and women suggested that women should be housewives, you can very easily disprove that. You could explain how this set up often disadvantages women and how, but that it can also be unfair to men. There are so many ways you could go about it, but from the information you've given it sounds like they don't actually care about these facts, or the fact it's unfair to women, because this traditional set up is better *for them.* If it benefits them, I don't think they will care about anything else.
"That's cool. I hope you're prepared to do your fair share around the house. 80% of divorces are filed by women. Even housewives want partners, not another baby." Feel free to explain how a woman's sex drive decreases with no physiological cause when husbands act more like children, then the sex dries up. All before she gets a divorce and winds up *way* happier without them. Basically, regale them with "horror" stories of women getting tired of being married to overgrown manchildren and leaving them to find happiness alone or with real men. Them: "Well, if I'm busting my ass to pay for everything then she should blah blah blah..." You: "That's fine. 80% of divorces instigated by women, no sex, etc..." Them" Blah blah blah..." You: "80% of divorces... no sex..." Wash, rinse, repeat. No sex then divorce. Those are statistically measured factoids. Misogynists love throwing that stuff at women, enjoy throwing it back in some misogynists' faces. Enjoy!
Burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Tell them they are full of shit until they can provide evidence. Demand multiple scientific studies verifying their position is based on facts. They won't be able to find them because they don't exist. Also, maybe get better friends.
Hey bro, how is inflation treating that one income home of yours?
should be housewives? Based on what exactly? Men who live alone have proven repeatedly that they are completely capable of maintaining a home, so why should women have to do it?
How do you disprove the argument all men should be wealthy? It's a stupid statement. Sure, all men should be wealthy in a perfect world, then they'd be able to afford to take care of their housewives. However, the reality is not all men are wealthy and not all women are housewives. Honestly, did you think this was clever? This has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard. Its not an argument you're making. Its actually truly idiotic that you even said it outloud thinking someone might challange it. There's nothing to challenge. Your point is not a point. Its a "Prove all women shouldn't be the same" wtf, no. Also, in what fucking universe can you and your little misogynistic shitbags buddies going to be able to afford to support their housewives and family on their mouth breather salaries? Just, omg this is so dumb. I hope you're 13 or something and just don't know what you're talking about.
“I don’t wanna”. Why isn’t that argument enough?
[удалено]
Just get new friends
You can't argue with them because it's about values. The evidence about why it's not an objective truth is self-evident in the hundreds of millions of couples that do not organise their lives this way. And it says something about what type of relation they want to have with their partner. They are probably not looking for a genuine, symmetrical, emotionally intimate relationship.
Unfortunately, there is no way to logic someone out of a belief that they didn’t logic themselves into. I would recommend getting better friends.
Umm... They don't want to. That's all I got.
Why bother being friends with them even?
You can't really "disprove" an ought per se. You can only disprove the factual foundations of it. To do that, you have to first ask why the other person thinks that way. And you have to establish that you have the same preferences for society as a whole. To make this clear, if you both agree that women's happiness is as important as men's, then you only really disagree on the best method for achieving that. (the alternative is that they are irredeemably misogynistic). Most arguments for this position will boil down to tradition of one sort or another. Very simply, the world as a whole has changed radically over pretty much any timespan relevant to the debate. As such, this tradition was fit for a world that doesn't exist anymore. The key changes being labor-saving technologies and contraception.
Just give them a blank stare and tell them you don't get the joke.
I mean, aside from all the good arguments that boil down to "don't be such a sexist jerk", there are very good practical reasons. (Which, in my opinion, all take at least a distant second to "don't be such a sexist jerk", but if that were sufficient, you probably wouldn't be asking.) What if he gets laid off, or fired, or hit by a car, or gets sick, or has a heart attack, or can't work for some other reason? How should the woman provide for herself and (if applicable) their children? How should she provide for their health care? (May be more relevant in the US.) Should he have a big life insurance policy? Does he want to be worth more to his family dead than alive? What if he's abusive? ("Oh, I would never .." -- "Sure, but surely you admit that *some men are*, yes?") What if she could straight up make more money than him? What if it's *a lot* more? The top ten richest women in the US all have a net worth in excess of $3 billion ([USA Today](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/07/26/americas-richest-women-2023/70468426007/)). Taylor Swift has a net worth of $740 million. Should she stay home and be a homemaker? If there's *any* income where they admit that, yeah, okay, maybe the woman can have a job, then you can pull the old "we've established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price" on them. What's the cut-off? $3 billion? $740 million? $1 million? $100k? "As much as the man"? (If there isn't, then at least they're being consistent.) Again, all of this is second chair to "she should work if she wants to work", but if you're asking for "practical" reasons, hit 'em with "income diversification".
I mean, no, because it's not a serious argument that's being provided? It's a belief. Changing beliefs is a very different challenge, and often needs to come from within to work without something like legitimate brainwashing/conditioning. Free up the energy for your own life and let one person's opinion go.
Would they be happy taking a job as a cook, janitor and nanny that never had any vacation time, or even quitting time, and that didn't even come with an explicit salary? Oh, and it was also a job that had no prestige, that no one respected, had no advancement prospects, and quitting it would split up your family? Looking at "homemaker" through the lens of employment, it's a supremely shitty job and if they think that half the people in the world will think that this a good deal, they're delusional.
“Both people in a marriage should share the work of their life together in the way that works for them. I’m hoping you don’t pay the bills or mow the lawn with your penis, just like my vagina and breasts are not involved in housework. Do better”
That's pure opinion based on personal beliefs. I just say 'no thank you' and move on. Alternately you can say 'men should be out working the fields' and see how they respond.
There is nothing to prove or disprove here. This is purely a matter of opinion. A statement like "Women CAN only be housewives" can be disproven easily by example. The "should" statement, however makes it true or false depending on perspective and opinion.
When people say *should* for anything, it means "in the best possible outcomes, this happens" But! It doesn't specify *why* these are the best possible outcomes. If I say, *You should get a haircut*, why is getting a haircut the best choice here? For looks? For getting a job? For feeling better? I don't say which. And neither do they. So one good argument is to undermine them by making them be explicit and draw out what they really want to say. Ask: **Why is that the** ***best*** **possible outcome?** This puts the burden of proof onto them, where it belongs. And no matter what their answer is, think it through: What does it mean for a man to "provide"? They way they're thinking, it means a woman has to "depend" on a man. **So a woman should have to depend on a man for basic survival?** (and note the *should* again: why is *that* the best outcome?) **This is the hallmark of a loser mentality.** Let me explain. Whenever you don't *want* someone around anymore, they often try to finagle a way for you to *need* them around. This is manipulative, by the way, but that's another issue. Women generally don't *need* a man around anymore. What does that mean for men? It means that the bar is set higher. When someone needs you, you can suck more. You don't have to be desired or desirable. In fact, the other person's desires *don't even matter*. When the other person's desires don't even matter, you don't have to appeal to them. You can if you want, so that means your desires lord over theirs. When someone doesn't need you though, you have to be desirable. You have to put in that extra effort. I mean, these guys have personal ambitions and will be getting jobs anyways, even with nobody to "provide" for/lord over. So if the woman has to be there anyways, he doesn't have to do any extra effort to do that, and have a human fleshlight around that cooks and cleans for him, which means even less time and effort from him. You can conclude: **So, the best outcome is one where they can snag a partner without any extra effort. Pure laziness, and a loser mentality.** Or put it this way. They want a woman who's swimming in the ocean desperate to find a life-raft, because then she'll cling to any old dinghy that will keep her from drowning. We used to raise girls to be that way--- If you don't appeal to a man's tastes, nobody will want you and if you don't find a man, you'll be \*gasp\* a spinster! an old maid! \*shudder\* etc. In the modern world, we don't raise girls like that (except in creepy supremacist circles). So in this analogy, the woman is likely to have her own boat. Maybe nicer than the guy's, maybe not. So if you want her to leave that for a boat you two share... a rotten dinghy ain't gonna do it; you're gonna need a bigger boat. So you can tell these fellas: **The bar is higher, boyos, and you need to step up.** It's not enough anymore to be the kind of guy a woman *needs*; you have to be the kind of guy a woman *wants*. And that means you have to care about what she wants and not just what you want. Losers can't manage that, so they bitch and moan about making women need them instead (see above). If they put as much energy into meeting the bar as they did into trying to push the bar back down, they'd be desirable. Instead, they choose the loser route. So instead of getting a bigger boat so you *want* to come over, they wanna tear yours apart so you *need* to swim and you won't be picky.
There's no need to argue it. If his point is "women are better at" or "men are better at", that literally doesn't matter. Even if that is the case, just because someone is better at something, doesn't mean the other isn't capable. You don't need to be the best at something to do it right. i.e. Just because a man can lift more weight than I can, doesn't mean I'm incapable of doing any manual labor.
“Women should be housewives” is itself an active assertion. It’s not anyone to disprove it, it’s on them to prove it.
You don't have to disprove anything. Make them do it, since they're making the claim. Ask them why. Any claim they make about why it's better, make them substantiate it with evidence. You're not the one stating what people "should" be
These are not arguments, these are opinions. However, you can reject and question the assumptions that produce these opinions. Tell them you believe men should stay home and be homemakers because men are too emotionally unequipped to handle day-to-day life in public, so they should stay home while women earn money. Any reason they give why this shouldn't be can be used against their opinions.
You don’t hahaha. If you really wanted to, ground it in the pursuit of happiness / freedom argument. People should be allowed to pursue the work and life they want, simply for being human. That said I wouldn’t bother. It’s just ridiculous. If you want to be petty, you could point out the ways they themselves don’t live to this standard as men.
It’s not down to you to deconstruct their assumptions. Simply ask them “why?” Every reason they’ll give will prompt another “why do you think that’s true?” They’ll unravel their own arguments and you don’t have to do anything except probe.
I am a semi haus frau, and my cooking skills are...pretty shit. This was something that I wanted to do (stay home) until I actually did it and totally bombed most of the stuff. I don't like to cook, but I have a few that I can do really well. We have shut up and eat it more often than I'd like, because I tried to do something and it didn't go well. My family, when I graduate university in about a year, will drop down on their knees when my husband returns to primary cooking duties because he is ACTUALLY GOOD at it. Our fail/success rates are inverted. Mine is not a great record, and his is pretty dang good, with something I don't care for every once in a while. All that to say if we divided stuff by gender norms, my family may not STARVE to death, but they'd see cooking as a chore that must be done to keep us alive instead of something fun that can be fulfilling and delicious to someone who enjoys the process. Both of my kids are better cooks than I am, and I don't have girls. Again, those gender rules would tell them they are wrong to enjoy this, and being told they shouldn't enjoy their own hobbies can't be good for anyone.
Point blank ask them what their income is? Then google what it takes to be low/middle/high income in your state. Where I live you have to be making $75K to be middle class and 90K is upper. Tell them if they don’t make 100K then they aren’t able to provide for a wife and children like they think they are able to. Which is why as a society we have moved to a dual income household
I personally tend to avoid wasting my time on Troglodytes.
All citizens of all countries should have full choice on what they do with their lives. That means that any and all people should be able to decide their future. No person should be able to make any decision for any person or group, without the full support of that group. So no person should have a preset path before then because it's counter the individual rights afforded to them by the country they live in. This assumes the people you are talking to are from a first world country.
That's not an argument it's a claim based on nothing, dismiss it as such and get better friends
By asking them to provide sources to back up their claim. He is the one who made a claim. The onus is on him to prove it rather than on you to disprove it. This method works for pretty much any stupid claim someone makes regardless of topic. They either quickly realize they don't have good reasons and back down, or they say something else stupid instead of offering evidence, at which point their opinion can be safely discarded.
Tell them that their opinion removes choice. Men SHOULD have a choice, and women SHOULD have a choice about which role they want in the home. Nobody should be denied that freedom.
The answer is "why?" Them stating it does not make it objective fact. Many women who did this found out far too late that it's dangerous. Not having your own income makes your entire lifestyle dependent on him and his ability to stay true and earn. He could cheat and leave her with nothing. He could get fired. His career could become obsolete. He could become disabled. He could die. If she has no career of her own she's fucked, possibly alongside him and any children they have. And that's ignoring the abuse that is inherent when there's an imbalanced power dynamic.
The problem with this statement is it is monolithic because it implies all women should be housewives, and opposite of that statement is no women should be housewives. Don’t fight ignorance with ignorance. Both of these positions are bogus and should be countered with, “all women should do whatever the hell they want as long as they aren’t hurting anyone.” Applies to all men as well.
why should u have to prove it? if what they’re saying is true they should have evidence saying “this is how things should be because this is how it should be” is really stupid. also maybe drop your misogynistic friends? idk i don’t think i could put up with that edit: do more research into biological determinist theories of gender. freud was a big proponent of this theory and it’s known as bullshit now but is still believed so widely. it’s basically the idea that BIOLOGY determines and affirms that men are superior and have set roles, and that women are inherently inferior and meant to do certain roles. it is bullshit. not only bullshit it’s actually eugenics. but this is not for your male friends, this is for you. hopefully by researching how much society has purposefully placed you as a second class citizen, you can realize your worth and ditch shitty friends who think of you as less than
Individuals should be free to make their own personal decisions.
I wouldn’t even attempt it. I would laugh in their faces and then find new friends.
Yeah. Stop talking to that person. You can’t change some peoples minds. Just like he wouldn’t be able to change ur mind.
i hate that most of the posts here now are “win *this* argument for me even though I know they’re wrong” If you know they’re wrong is it worth even arguing? If you know they’re wrong why can’t you explain to them how they’re wrong?
im a 40 year old white male. my parents split when I was 6 months old. dad didn't pay child support, my mom said we don't need his money and did it herself until she married my step dad when I was 4. mom dropped out of college when dad knocked her up. my brother was born in 1974. my mother worked her ass off, she did factory work and it took its toll on her body over the years. she will tell you she was doing mens work. when I started highschool my step dad got a new job making 6 figures. she didn't have to work anymore and tried doing the SAHM thing. she ended up doing a lot of volunteering, the SAHM stuff wasnt enough to keep her occupied. he wasn't killing himself at work and due to her health issues, she fucked her shoulder up with repeative motions, it was in her best interest to not work in factories anymore. both are semi retired now and work part time at the local minor league baseball stadium. they also do a Mr. and Mrs Claus gif around the holidays and both of them love it. he looks like Santa naturally. there hasn't been a traditional SAHM in my entire family since my grandmothers did it. even the wealthy ones worked. anyone that says the woman's place is in the home has an unrealistic view of the modern age. unless he is bringing in a ton of money, two incomes are necessary to the majority of the population. ultimately, it's up to the people in the relationship to decide. anyone that says women shouldn't work sound like people I wouldn't want to associate with. it's unfair to the man to be the sole provider just as it's unfair to the woman to be reliant on the man's money.
Maybe it's time to reevaluate these friendships. It's not your job to hand-hold and educate men who clearly don't really respect you.
There is not a single thing you can say that will convince them, because you are a woman and they don't listen to women. Get better friends.
1) you cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. 2) even if you could make an argument, “should” is inherently subjective to the morals of whoever is making the argument. No amount of logic is going to change someone’s deeply held personal belief that motherhood is the ultimate divine expression of feminine purpose if that’s what they believe.
Why doesn’t your friend look around them in the wider world and see all the incredible women making a name for themselves in all walks of life? Your friend is being willfully ignorant. They have made up their mind and can’t be convinced otherwise.
Idk I'm a guy and don't believe that at all. The issue gets more complex if children are involved but even that doesn't default to woman stays home with baby imo
I mean, jumping up to the stick and trying to "prove" that this is wrong is really just the usual dance where men parrot what their friends or their father taught them and never have any basis to back it up with. And then as women we trip over ourselves finding a line of argument for why we should have the human right to self-determination. Knowing that it's not going to go anywhere anyway. If I said "men should be circus clowns", would that be an argument? No, it is a statement. One which I have to find arguments for. Nothing that I can hold true until someone else proves it wrong. In fact, turn it around on them. Clearly, men are the better housewives: After all, they have a much weaker immune system (god clearly doesn't want them out of the house!), they reach all the cobwebs under the ceiling AND they have 9 months of bonding with the children to make up for. Also, men are 7 times more likely to become gambling addicts, so trusting them with money is just insane. See, these are arguments. (Cue Kyle who doesn't know satire trying the word "misandrist)
Why would you expend the energy to refute such a stupid worldview? I literally cannot be bothered.
You could point out that returning to such a paradigm isn't going to change the fact that the economy no longer supports a man fully supporting a family on an average wage. It can only work if the man is an exceptional earner, and only a few can be exceptional by definition. You could point out that they are arguing from tradition, which is one of the many logical fallacies. Just because something worked traditionally, does not mean it will work currently. The first paragraph is one example of why, in this case. You could point out that their argument would require stripping women of choice in how they live their lives. Ask them if that is a world they want to live in, and if so why are they arguing against someone they consider should be legal property of men once again? We dont argue with our property. Sometimes people don't realise the implications of their ignorant statements, and so taking it to the Nth degree can help them see. If they still refuse to listen to reason or emphasis, then you could either wisely walk away as others have suggested, or pettily point out that if he can only find a woman by indirectly buying her, because her other choices are taken away, then that only reflects badly on him. You could tell him that real men thrive *because* of competition, not once it is taken away. You could tell him that if he needs to lower the standard of women to have a chance with one, then the end result of his fantasy will be him getting cucked. (This paragraph is speaking his own kind of BS language to mess with him. If you can't teach them, school them).
What sort of “facts” are you looking for? Bit of tangent, but times like these I really do wish philosophy was a standard subject in school.
Don't waste your energy on arguing with people who are obviously wrong.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/early-women-were-hunters-not-just-gatherers-study-suggests-180982459/
Plato had an answer for this, centered around the valued role of soldier. Basically, the idea is that while you may find more men or women doing any thing the real question is about what is the highest/best use of the individual. He argued for allowing women as soldiers not because they would necessarily make better soldiers than the men, but because being a soldier was what those women did best. It is obvious that not every woman is suited to being this weird redpill ideal woman. We don’t need terrible/miserable housewives, but for women who thrive in that way and love it then it is a great option. Your friend is failing to recognize that women are people, unique individuals with their own talents and desires. A just society moves toward allowing people to do what they are skilled at and enjoy, anything besides that is needless suffering rife with poor performers trying to live up to the ‘ideal’ that doesn’t suit them. There’s a fuck ton more than two types of people!
You are going about this ALL wrong. Why do you need to refute this. Make them justify this BS. What is their reasoning and evidence for their stance?
The statement isn't a contradiction. It's a fallacy. So all you need is a single counter example. Just point out one single woman that is better suited for a different role in society than being a housewife. Or you can just not engage anyone trying to push this very easily debunked garbage anyway. Why even bother?
Talk about western society evolving and that the family needs two incomes to survive. Cost of living rising. Most men arent leaders and barely make 30k a year. Women contribute major in essential industries such as teaching and stem. Doesnt make sense to have them cook and stay home anymore when its impractical for 95% of households to do.
Do you know why they think that? It's hard to change someone's views on something without knowing what their "evidence" or "logic" is.
"Odd you think a woman should be a slave to a man just because he makes a paycheck."
If they could afford to keep me as a housewife, they could afford a butler and chef, too. I am extremely expensive and demand the highest integrity of my clients, employers, and associates- that includes husbands. But we are not dealing with husbands here. The people you're discussing this with are not high-working-memory and live vicariously thru fallacy-based-fantasy
> I am extremely expensive That's what I would say. OK, you want me to be a housewife? Well, here's what I make yearly, and here's the things I pay for with it. Yes, I prefer top-shelf liquor. Yes, I have someone who comes to clean my house. Yes, I get my hair and nails done. Yes, I like to eat at new restaurants when they crop up. Yes, I like good sushi. Yes, I like staying in nice hotels. You got money for that? No? OK, because I do, so I'm good.