49
50

INSIGHTFUL"Housewives make their men healthy and wealthy" (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by Simpsondimsum

I found this amazing article about how housewives make their husband's lives much better. It sites some interesting research:

"Men whose wives contribute to the domestic chores - rather than going out to work - are able to spend more time developing the skills and contacts that increase their labour market productivity."

The research comes at a time when about 75 per cent of women work; 45 per cent, full-time, and 30 part-time. According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of working mothers is almost 65 per cent.

Furthermore, a new study by sociologists Vincent Duindam and Ed Spruijt of Utrecht University in The Netherlands is set to generate even more controversy; it confirms that, the more hours the mother works, the worse the father's physical and mental health.

Here is the link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/3320392/Housewives-make-their-men-healthy-and-wealthy.html


[–]sodainthewatercup6 40 points41 points  (10 children)

This is geared toward men's health. Not enough people care about such things outside of this sub.

The only thing that could be worse in the public eye is if it was geared toward the well-being of white people.

[–][deleted]  (9 children)

[removed]

    [–]sodainthewatercup6 11 points12 points  (8 children)

    You're right. We hear about men's issues all the time in the media and they raise awareness amongst corporations and other similar social gatherings. /s

    [–][deleted]  (7 children)

    [removed]

      [–]sodainthewatercup6 9 points10 points  (6 children)

      But this isn't victimhood. This is realism. People don't give a fuck about men, so the proper answer is we have to give a fuck about ourselves and our brothers.

      [–][deleted]  (4 children)

      [removed]

        [–]sodainthewatercup6 2 points3 points  (3 children)

        I see your point, but the difference is self-repair. Other communities look outward for the solution. I believe the main goal for us is to look inward.

        [–]mymarkis666 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

        I disagree. I think they look outward for the cause of all their problems. Which seems to me what you are also doing. Women are not oppressed in western civilisation and men are not oppressed in western civilisation. If you have problems and you are not mentally disabled they are your own doing.

        [–]sodainthewatercup6 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        You think because I believe people don't care about men's problems means I think outside sources cause men's problems?

        I think you are arguing just to fight for higher ground.

        [–]mymarkis666 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Men's issues are not discussed as much because men don't like to discuss their issues. Not because there's an evil matriarchy trying to stifle men. It's that simple. Women are underrepresented as CEOs because a lot of women don't want to sacrifice family life on the road to becoming a CEO. Not because there's an evil patriarchy trying to stifle women.

        In my country there's been a big push to discussing prostate cancer. Because men are choosing to talk about it. It's that simple.

        [–]ProspectiveQuant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I am no feminist but logically I would imagine their argument would obviously be that a slave improves the life of a master, but that doesn't make it ok to allow slavery... I'm sure they would ignore the voluntary nature of housewifeness, and whatnot.

        It would be nice if the study showed an improvement in womens health when they were housewives.

        But then it seems like it would be non-gender related?

        Also...it strikes me, logically-minded anyway, that the whole effect could just be wealth. It's a rough world nowadays. I imagine only wealthier men can afford to have wives that don't work...wealth seems like it would naturally lead to more health.

        [–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

        i cannot speak to the world-at-large, but in my marriage, this is true. i think it is true because both my husband and i feel very supported and loved in this setup. it is what works best for us.

        i manage our household with a spirit of joy. i feel like i am doing what i was meant to do - connect with my community, support the my husband at home, and pursue my professional and intellectual interests in an authentic way. i work on contracts as a creative and i love having this space while also doing my dream job of managing a household.

        i feel fortunate to make sacrifices that support this life because my husband and i both thrive in it. i used to have a full-time+ job and i was miserable. that misery and lack of support my husband felt also affected his happiness and performance at work. of course it did!

        [–][deleted]  (8 children)

        [deleted]

        [–][deleted]  (5 children)

        [deleted]

          [–][deleted]  (4 children)

          [deleted]

            [–][deleted]  (3 children)

            [deleted]

              [–][deleted]  (2 children)

              [deleted]

                [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                [deleted]

                  [–]kissmyankle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  :) Thank you!

                  [–]Simpsondimsum[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                  Is there anyway you could go back to that?

                  [–]vitringur 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                  Be careful to not equate correlation with causality.

                  [–]Simpsondimsum[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

                  Read the article

                  [–]vitringur 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                  I did. They clearly establish a correlation, and they have theories to explain that correlation, but this news article does not sufficiently establish a causal relationship.

                  There might well be. I am however unable to find the original source for that report/research.