Do TRPillers and other neoreactionaries not understand the problems that come with economic dependence and submission?

NockerJoe · 2019-09-19T08:43:21+00:00

There's a difference between not knowing and not caring. Economic dependence serves their needs right up until the divorce and if they can secure a prenup and take precautions, it can serve their needs even through then. Dependence can have it's benefits but the thrust of the argument isn't and shouldn't be that it's better for you. It's better for the guy making the argument than the alternative and he just needs someone to play along. If you want to be independent you can. If he can get someone willing to take that deal that's on him and her.

GayLubeOil · 2019-09-19T15:05:10+00:00

Here's a woman who would rather be economically controlled by an uncaring boss than submit to a man and have a family. From a strict Marxist perspective we have a prole who enjoys submission to the bourgeois and wants to be alienated from the other sex.

sadomasochrist · 2019-09-19T12:31:12+00:00

This is mostly a concern to women who make awful wives.

Hennythepainaway · 2019-09-19T08:33:41+00:00

You keep going on about neoreactionaries. I never learned how to read so can you explain your long buzzwords.

As for your question, most people work shitty jobs. Say your husband isn't a shit bag who abuses you both physically and financially (which you think is the majority for some reason), would you rather work 40 hours a week at a shitty job or be at home watching jerry springer or outside doing whatever SAHMs do. My mother was a SAHM so don't give that cooking and cleaning takes all day shit. She was also able to take longer vacations visiting families while my father couldn't take as much time off from his business. She does do some part time work now since her kids are older, but honestly she sometimes takes weeks off at a time because she feels like it. She won the godamn lottery from going from a successful father to a successful husband. If you told her times up, go work 40 hours a week, I honestly think that would break her.

Do you not understand how this kind of economic dependence leaves women vulnerable to manipulation and abuse?

Yeah some people have it rough. Vet your partners better

Do you not understand how women were expected to obey the male authority, even in cases where the man was totally incompetent?

The stronger person except for the last 100 or so years usually always had the authority. Color me shocked. They have DV laws now for that that get enforced pretty regularly.

Are we just going to pretend that economic dependence is some awesome thing that everyone should strive for?

If you won the lottery, would you be complaining that the you depended on millions of suckers for your new found wealth? For many people, if they didn't have to work so much, they wouldn't. You're acting like working for most people is a great experience.

You post here a bunch but only really in topics you start. Your worldviews are so strange and doom and gloom. I'm not pretending that the world is all sunshine and rainbows, but I feel like if I went on the subway with you, you would start giving me murder statistics for people who ride on them.

Let me ask you something. How do you feel about women who want to be SAHMs? The only people who hate on them are Feminists. No one else has a problem with them.

Barely-moral · 2019-09-19T10:18:29+00:00

I see the problems. I see the disadvantages. I also see the benefits.

I just compare them with the situation that is being dependant on your work/career/job and knowing the fact that most people don't get to choose a job they enjoy... I actually think that being dependant on a person that loves you is better than being dependent on the market.

cassandrarose39 · 2019-09-19T12:16:32+00:00

Women have to have a boss they are in submission too also.

Women also end up with men who can’t hold jobs, drink all the money away, gamble it away, or drug it away.

You act like there’s zero manipulation or control issues with women who are in marriages where both work.

The traditional model offers a lot of protection for women as opposed to the above situations.

We aren’t even talking about a high percentage of couples anyways. Most men aren’t bringing in enough to support a stay at home mom. The ones who are have to have a high degree of success, responsibility, and stability. Doesn’t exactly point to a bad deal?

guy_24601 · 2019-09-19T12:06:46+00:00

Yes imo.

Part of the issue is what people want quite often ends up being something they dont want. contradictions abound, or if you prefer extremes.

I'm not in doubt that a woman can pressure a man until he changes into a man a woman finds unattractive, all by increasing traits people would consider positive, because there are limits.

Does anyone really think a man wants a totally submissive woman? Unless thats your kink I'd say no. Equally no one really wants a totally docile man either. (note relevance to topic in connotation of adjective selection)

need is the factor that makes people vulnerable to abuse. I've pointed out the "niceguy" pattern exists where people who dont have many friends try to manipulate their way into friendships that end up being one way interactions.

A lonely guy and a girl that is struggling financially to keep a roof over her head is a disaster for each party.

I dont really care to squabble about who has it worse in that scenario, because it ends up being a pointless argument. The end up each trying to exploit a vulnerable party. Neither party truly likes the other, they just wants something the other can provide.

Its problematic though, because the same need that is corrosive is what facilitates the majority of relationships imo.

Avoiding that dependence is sound advice, but at the same time if feels likely to see people die alone. A conscious choice to avoid this is why I considered myself mgtow in the early 2000s long before I was aware of it or trp.

Consider how successful women complain about how few guys meet their standards, most recently not enough "economically attractive men"

Its well documented that women who have a good career still expect a man to earn more than she does. exceptions and anecdotes exist, but generally its the case though.

Lonely men are more than happy to bribe women for intimacy (of any kind) and so many women are happy to be on the receiving end of that.

See any discussion on who pays for dinner for a demonstration.

People want the positives and not the negatives of traditional roles.

CMOAN_MAYNE · 2019-09-19T13:05:36+00:00

That’s why alimony and child support became a thing.

You can secure a SAHM’s (or dad’s) financial security through the legal process.

Obviously there are problems and no system is perfect. The trade off is getting to raise your kids instead of being forced into corporate slavery while someone else does.

People say “but it’s a choice to work”. Is it? Families have required dual incomes for a while now. Social pressure pushes women into the career life since society is so hostile towards SAHM’s.

And this is where I disagree with RP’ers - I don’t care which parent stays at home, but it should be economically viable for one of them to do so and it isn’t.

ZodiacBrave98 · 2019-09-19T13:46:37+00:00

The red pill issue is women want both the benefits of independence ( Her own job and money) and marriage (we share everything).

You can construct a fair version of 'marriage' using business law : defined contributions and shared profits, where the Corp (marriage) owns the assets (kids and shared moneys). Very contract centric (Jewish marriages are similar to this).

We don't have that. We have All-Or-Nothing. Women want 'Real Marriage'TM .

So Women want the 'All' and TRP Men want the 'Nothing'.

Azihayya · 2019-09-19T14:27:42+00:00

From what I've seen, most people espousing tradcon values don't care about women, or equality--they're obsessed with this idea that the West is in decline and that reproduction is too important to be left to individuals.

DaphneDK42 · 2019-09-19T11:04:18+00:00

Yes, you seem to misunderstand the argument. The argument isn't that women had it worse than they have it today, but that they didn't have it worse than their contemporary men had it. And it wasn't men (or THE PATRIARCHY) who made life miserable for the women. You talk about a time in the past which doesn't exist any more. Women were dependent on men, men were dependent on women, and everybody was a lot more dependent on their families. The kind of independent lifestyle which is possible today was not an option for the vast majority of people. Life for a lot of people sucked a lot more. Probably wasn't super great being a coal miner in 1920 either, or being shipped off to the trenches.

crackrocksteady7 · 2019-09-19T12:07:33+00:00

Dont care

eboy4hire · 2019-09-19T13:52:35+00:00

Shit, if you pay for my whole fucking life, and I just gotta do chores, abuse me all you want. lmao

downvotesanimals · 2019-09-19T16:24:39+00:00

If you really wanna go there, it can EASILY be argued that men are those now economically dependent and submissive. Why? Well despite the average man making more money than the average woman, women on average spend more of their partners' money than they do!

Globally (patriarchal societies included), women account for 64% of spending decisions. The number is higher in developed countries.

https://www.catalyst.org/research/buying-power/

There's certainly a stronger word than 'economic submission' for this phenomenon, but that's another matter.

Eastuss · 2019-09-19T08:16:02+00:00

Do you not understand how this kind of economic dependence leaves women vulnerable to manipulation and abuse?

And when women are "economically independent", they are free to go get manipulated and abused by bosses and superiors instead, just like men since the ends of times. It's just the same thing, except now she has to do a man's work instead of a woman's work, which eventually will make enough women unhappy.

Do you not understand it's the same thing everywhere for everyone? Do you not understand how this kind of sexual dependence leaves men vulnerable to manipulation and abuse? Do you not understand how now men have to obey female authority, even in cases where the woman is totally incompetent? Do you not see how men had to deal with their incompetent wives before too?

Like, this is just one sided bullshit right here, just gtfo.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2019-09-19T09:01:09+00:00

I see that instead of trying to address individual arguments which are directed towards you in replies, you're making new posts. Okay, I can let that slide since you're getting lots of responses.

I'm neither a TRPer nor a Neoreactionary, however your points have the following problems:

In this post, many commented that the traditional gender role is awesome for women, because women don't have to work. (which is kind of a myth. Many women did work but they still had little to no control over the finances.)

Which indicates something I have emphasized in my reply to you. What traditionalism are you talking about here?

From what I see, most TRPers and the like define "traditionalism" in terms of early-to-mid-20th-century Anglosphere gender roles. Those of the generation immediately before the sexual revolution, and perhaps the generation before that, within the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

You, on the other hand, seem undecided about which "traditionalism" we're talking about. Some of your arguments about what "traditionalism" includes sound more like Saudi Arabian gender roles, or perhaps those of an hypothesized pre-modern tribe of hunter-gatherers, or those of early Pagan civilization, rather than those we're used to in the early-to-mid-century-modern West.

If you want to talk about "traditionalism," define a specific time and place, and perhaps outline the tenets of this traditionalism.

Do TRPillers not understand the problems that come with economic dependence and submission or do they just pretend not to understand?

I can't speak for them, but I think the issue is that being in the labor market isn't necessarily a ticket out of economic dependence or submission. Aren't you a progressive leftist? Surely you should know about the abuses of employees by employers.

For some women, especially intelligent ones with in-demand skills, housewifery is a pretty bad choice. But for a lot of women, the question isn't "slavery v. freedom" but rather "financial dependence upon spouse v. financial dependence upon employer." You can fairly argue the latter at least has the advantage of competition for one's labor and thus a wide variety of alternate employers with relatively low switching costs... but in a world of no-fault-divorces the same is arguably true of the former as well.

Oh and btw, no, male and female sexuality were obviously not restricted to the same degree. It was much more acceptable for males to sleep around.

What society are you talking about here, and in what time period? And did this vary by social class?

Because from what I can see, your statement only really makes sense regarding the traditional sexual moralities of most ancient civilizations, and in Islamic civilization.

Rome and Greece had monogamous marriage as an institution but there were workarounds to it, mostly available to higher-class individuals.

Western Christianity's primarily sexual morality was heterosexuality-within-the-bonds-of-holy-matrimony only, equally constraining to both men and women. Higher-class individuals had access to more workarounds/exceptions than lower-class individuals, but I don't see (for example) the Roman Catholic Church promoting promiscuity for men or believing in alternatives to heterosexual PIV within the bonds of monogamous marriage.

Not to mention, your argument that female sexuality was restricted more than male sexuality is completely untrue when the subject of homosexuality is brought up. Homophobia has historically been deployed much more against male homosexuality than female homosexuality. So-called "homophobia" is typically homomisandry.

When I talk about traditionalism, I do not mean modern SAHMs, I am referring to a specific set of societal expectations that many Red Pillers evidently support.

Well what do you mean by traditionalism, then?

What are the items within this set of expectations? Can you list these expectations? Could you perhaps give an example of cultures/times/places in which these specific expectations have been the normative ones?

Whiteliesmatter1 · 2019-09-19T12:49:09+00:00

Depends on how far you go back. The farther back you go, the more humanity was subject to nature. Back then, given the constraints of biology and what childbirth/reading meant for a woman, husbandry was probably in women’s favor. As hospitals, breast pumpers, birth control, a declining birth rate, became a thing and machines started doing most of the heavy lifting and physical strength became less important in labor, it probably wasn’t in most women’s interest.

But dependence isn’t objectively bad, and it doesn’t always end up as an abusive dynamic. Not even usually. Most men in the husband role feel responsible, not privileged. And responsible weighs on you. It is a totally valid choice to choose dependence over responsibility. I do a job where I could work for myself, but I choose to trade some freedom for my work being responsible to pay me a base salary, which takes a ton of stress out of my life, but is worth the costs to me.

The three women closest to me in my life have tried working and tried being dependent. One is working a highly paid job now, one is working an average paid job and one is a SAHM. They all say they would prefer to be looked after than have to work. And I understand that. Working for The Man isn’t super fun either. And being an entrepreneur takes everything you have as the marketplace is generally ultra competitive. In most cases you need to run as fast as you can just to stay in the same place. Working for The Man is a role of dependency as well. Just on a different person. And in most cases with higher expectations and more conditionality.

In any case being in a dependent position is a double edged sword. On one hand if the husband is responsible and a good person, then it is a very privileged situation. If the husband is nasty then it is obviously better to be independent. Same situation as with work and the boss.

[deleted] · 2019-09-19T13:49:26+00:00

Do you not understand how this kind of economic dependence leaves women vulnerable to manipulation and abuse?

Of course it does. But first, you don't have to bother with dating red pillers. Secondly, women are free to pursue careers, but they have to suffer like the rest of us for having to work 40+ hours a week for shitty pay.

You can keep your job and that's fine. But until women can earn more than a man, be okay with supporting him and not let this destroy the marriage, it seems it's better for men to earn more.

You can press on the 'but he can manipulate her' button all you like. But men are the ones more likely to be manipulated so what did RP do? They refused to get married.

You are welcome to have a job and say no to marriage if you fear being manipulated that much. But it serves neither you nor the people who enjoy that dynamic to tell them they're taking a huge risk. You take a risk by driving to work everyday but that doesn't stop people from owning cars despite there being more motor vehicle accidents than women being manipulated by a higher earning man.

Most housewives are not married to an abusive asshole. They preferred being at home with the kids so they compromised (something most modern women are incapable of doing). You cannot be a good mom/wife/worker all at once because no woman can have it all, barring extremes. If you sleep better at night being married to your job, so be it. But no one's forcing women to marry anyone let alone be financially dependent on them.

Also, having a parent at home is not the worst thing for a child's development. Good luck convincing women not to take a lifestyle shift that privileges them even more...

Esk1mOz4mb1k · 2019-09-19T15:01:35+00:00

If you equate being RP to being a shitty old fashionned trad you got it wrong.

RP is about understanding differences between men and women. When used right RP is a powerful tool for men to adapt to the way society has changed. I'm personally glad women are now equal to men legally and socially, that's just fair.

Many shitty dudes have gone to TRP to whine because their traditional model is dying, they now have to work to be of value instead of having a system do that for them.

AngelFire_3_14156 · 2019-09-19T15:53:15+00:00

OP, you seem to be almost obsessed with finding fault with anything Red Pill, as if it's a threat to your very existence. Your view of Red Pill is unreasonably narrow, almost to the point of being ridiculous.

If you look for opportunities, then you will find opportunity,

If you try to find fault with anything, then you will find nothing but faults.

Just a little wisdom from Stoic Philosophy.

Pontifex_Lucious-II · 2019-09-19T08:26:39+00:00

Most do. Do women realize economic responsibility for a family may lead to starvation?

abaxeron · 2019-09-19T09:52:18+00:00

Do TRPillers not understand the problems that come with economic dependence and submission or do they just pretend not to understand?

"You will have access to my resources on my terms and conditions" is not "dependence and submission"; it's common sense. Stay single, work for yourself, and bow to no-one - is a choice that those women had, but very few made.

Do you not understand how this kind of economic dependence leaves women vulnerable to manipulation and abuse?

"You will spend my resources under my supervision and with my consent" is not "manipulation and abuse".

Do you not understand how women were expected to obey the male authority, even in cases where the man was totally incompetent?

If between two of us, you are a better car driver, it does not mean that my car must automatically belong to you entirely. If it's mine, and for some weird reason you want to drive it, you will either drive it as I tell you to, or get out.

You're also leaving one crucial part of the picture: tradcon marriage implies that a man accepts a woman "with her circumstances". Which means that right after saying "I DO", he becomes responsible for all her accumulated debt, all her existing children, and all contracts she is currently binded by.

If you don't understand the difference between a choice and a societal expectation/obligation

YOU don't understand the difference between "expectation" and "obligation". Ban on forced marriages is one of the EARLIEST civil laws instituted in Europe.

Oh and btw, no, male and female sexuality were obviously not restricted to the same degree. It was much more acceptable for males to sleep around.

What evidence for that do we have?

LeJacquelope · 2019-09-19T09:27:52+00:00

Do TRPillers not understand the problems that come with economic dependence and submission or do they just pretend not to understand? Do you not understand how this kind of economic dependence leaves women vulnerable to manipulation and abuse?

TRPers call this betabux and they say that men in this situation are wide open to being cuckolded, among other dreadful things that women do to these men.

I for one can't stand it. I much preferred career women, and married one.

brander20 · 2019-09-19T10:40:28+00:00

Do you ever wonder if your particular insistence on categorising TRP is counterproductive towards your aims? I get the animosity towards the sex and gender roles, but I'm not sure you've realized the inconsistencies within the TRP's fully before you've ascribed your political narratives on to it and moved onto conversing with its most vocal. I think you're conflating political leanings with misogyny to such a degree that you're missing out on the universal aspects of misogyny within different cultures and political institutions. When TRP equates it's dogma with rightwing, neoreactionary ideals, it's not alone, hasn't been alone, and will continue not to be alone so long as typical biological males are invited to or forced to organise societies.

Willow-girl · 2019-09-19T10:44:15+00:00

Economic dependence must also include abolition of alimony and child support, which I didn't see advocated by TRP, or at least it is not generally accepted.

Azkik · 2019-09-19T13:09:54+00:00

You are at your most vulnerable when you are "independent."

ForeverNandrolone · 2019-09-19T13:17:15+00:00

Women can have two viable options.

Work a career or raise a family.

Having a career is pretty self explanatory and I don’t think think that TRP opposes it other than careers can often be unrewarding.

Raising a family usually means being dependent on a man somewhat. This does put women in a vulnerable position. There are ways to reduce that vulnerability. Women need to taught how to be more feminine so that they attract better men and they need to learn how to vet men better.

Feminism only pushes one of these things: career. And vehemently opposes the other. And it appears that feminism believes that all men are pieces of shit all the time and that’s why feminism is bullshit.

Raising a family can be very rewarding and many women want it. And if feminism actually cared about women it would encourage women to have families if they desired and teach them how to accomplish that goal. Feminism doesn’t do this because at its core it’s a Marxist movement meant to destroy the family.

largepaycheckaddict · 2019-09-19T13:42:38+00:00

If things back then were way worse for women than today, then why is the economy complete and utter shit for working and middle class people when in the past, the job market wasn’t totally flooded with women because most married a man who provided for them at least to a degree where if she worked it was only temporary or PT. a family could be provided for on a salary that only required a highschool education at the local factory or mill in town in the past.

Now in our liberal state, women have hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans for advanced degrees that yield no job prospects capable of paying off their debts.

More and more women resort to degrading sex work to make ends meet. I specifically knew a woman who worked as an escort to pay for her graduate school tuition.

It seems like a popular complaint from women that they can’t seem to meet a guy worth staying with due to his lack of income or professional status. This is resulting in a majority of women being bitter and single where in the past only a small minority of spinster types never met a man and married.

Overall this age of gender equality is incredibly narcissistic and devoid of natural order. Both sexes are getting increasingly angry, not building families together, and living this atomized existence of materialistic consumption that stirs up mass mental illness and drugs consumption to correct that- this all only benefits the machine that exploits us all.

Ultimately any choice in life requires sacrifice. If you want to be a modern career woman, that sacrifice may be the ability to have a good husband, family and sense of security and provision that comes with. If you want to be a good wife and family woman, the sacrifice that comes with that is not having the chance to pursue a career and make a name for yourself in whatever respective field. As for men, the same deal. A family man may have to throw away his dreams of pursing music or arts for the sake of providing for his family. He might have to sell the motorcycle and stop hanging out with the boys at the bar every weekend too.

What I’m trying to say is there’s a degree of economic dependence in things no matter what you do whether you are relying on a husband for a pay check or a predatory exploitative boss. Or if you own your own business, getting financially ass raped for tax dollars. There is no easy way out of this.

To me the traditional nuclear family is the best option for what you put into it, so I will pursue that route.

xiaodre · 2019-09-19T14:24:52+00:00

I'm sure they do understand the problems. The question is what values they assign to a situation like what you describe.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2019-09-19T19:23:14+00:00

they dont care whats good for women

XtoDoubt · 2019-09-19T10:03:27+00:00

You can't be taken care of, loved, supported, and get to live your life in the way that maximizes your happiness and also get to pull the rip cord whenever you feel like it an ruin a man. In the exceptional cases where the woman either makes a mistake and marries the wrong man or he changes for some reason, the reality is no woman in this country would ever starve. She'd have to pick up the pieces like men who are economically destroyed by divorce today. Why should women accept this? As I argued in the other thread, it seems to make them happier long term.

idkwhattoputhere000 · 2019-09-19T11:58:36+00:00

Not only that, but they also like to quack all the time about how women are golddiggers and expect the man to do all the effort and put in all the money and how they divorce rape men etc... yet they literally favour gender roles that are in support of such behaviour?

AnotherUserName10698 · 2019-09-19T10:42:43+00:00

I am honestly baffled by these comments. It’s like these guys want to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend this shit doesn’t happen. Says a lot about their naivety and ignorance.

DissonanceBadger · 2019-09-19T09:20:57+00:00

TRPillers care about maximizing sexual attraction, not social dynamics or practicality. As long as female sexual attraction is based on being submissive to a high value dominant male, then that is how it’s gonna have to be. So it’s not that they don’t understand, it’s that they don’t care.

Willow-girl · 2019-09-19T11:50:33+00:00

Do TRPillers not understand the problems that come with economic dependence and submission or do they just pretend not to understand?

They don't care. It is not their problem.

ScootsScoots · 2019-09-19T14:52:04+00:00

Of course they do, that's the point.

It's an attempt to balance the playing field.

Unless you wanna give up that divorce rape, you better get back to that dependent position.

You can't play both as a dependent and an independent person.

You women need to actually start taking on the responsibilities of an independent person and giving up your pussy pass if you want to be respected. As it is now, you're the kid in the room who we have to humor and it's gotten reaaaaaallllly old.

"Yes Linda you're strong and independent and the hardest worker here even though I just had to do your job for you because you cant lift the 40lb bags of dirt in the garden shop."

I dont miss retail.

Whisper · 2019-09-19T19:50:38+00:00

TRP is not neoreactionary, so the rest of your question makes no sense.

AutoModerator · 2019-09-19T08:04:42+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

chomponthebit · 2019-09-19T16:14:13+00:00

Religion, marriage, and laws against infidelity were created to control women’s hypergamy. Women are 100% sure the child is theirs, men...? Not so much

[deleted] · 2019-09-19T17:17:11+00:00

Damn, I have seen some stubborn people on both sides of the pill, but you have definitely got to be the worst of them all. You make a post with no intention of changing your views or having a debate. It’s like talking to the Donald Trump wall.

leftajar · 2019-09-19T17:24:33+00:00

Dependence goes both ways.

The traditional housewife is dependent on her husband for financial and emotional support, yes.

But he's also dependent on her to nurse and monitor the children, run the household, and manage their social lives.

Anti-TRPers only focus on the first type of dependence while completely ignoring the latter. They then pretend that somehow, the team functions better if nobody is ever dependent in any way. As if, sports teams are comprised of individual players that don't cooperate or rely on each other whatsoever.

DevilishRogue · 2019-09-19T18:43:52+00:00

Do TRPillers not understand the problems that come with economic dependence and submission or do they just pretend not to understand?

It is you that seems not to understand that the problems you imagine to exist don't. Women control the overwhelming majority of spending, are the overwhelming recipients of the greatest share of benefits, and use soft power to ensure their effective position of dominance in terms of financial control with the state enforced ability to back that up with hard power via life long alimony and child support plus the marital home and half the assets in the event of divorce.

Your stereotype about the oppressed housewife doesn't reflect reality. And whilst abuse does still happen it is extremely rare, harshly punished, and very much a result of the choice of the woman in question.

Saza_King · 2019-09-19T20:50:38+00:00

Did you even read the comments on your last post? No one argued that dependency is good 100% of the time. They were saying that women will pursue what ever gender rolls benefit them. If a woman can find a situation where she doesn't have to work, she'll do it.

Spartan_Hoplite · 2019-09-19T21:32:38+00:00

/Do TRPillers not understand the problems that come with economic dependence and submission or do they just pretend not to understand? Do you not understand how this kind of economic dependence leaves women vulnerable to manipulation and abuse? Do you not understand how women were expected to obey the male authority, even in cases where the man was totally incompetent? Are we just going to pretend that economic dependence is some awesome thing that everyone should strive for

What you miss is that the societal order in which husband is head of the family and a breadwinner while wife is a SAHM who cares about the household and obeys her husband is based on Christian values and historically the basis for it in European society was Christianity. Obviously, Christian values forbid manipulaltion and abuse of women, so if we take the model in toto (wife stays at home and obeys her husband, husband loves and cares about his wife), it works perfectly and is the best possible model for women who can fulfill their main societal role as mothers while enjoying protection, provision and leadership of her husband. Sadly, it was done away with by sexual revolution (although the way for this disaster was paved even earlier) and we live the dire consequences.

Rabidstuffy · 2019-09-20T05:56:29+00:00

This is why women were taught how to choose a good husband, and focusing on the men and boys for growth, was the past. The boys would grow to men, and they would lead their wives. Whom they cherished and protected.

Women would be taught to choose wisely, and their choices would be guided by a community that cared about their future and the future of their happy laughing little toddling babies.

There's no reason we can't get that again. Recognize what has been taken from you, grieve for it, and claim your birth right.

Human nature doesn't change.

FairlyNaive · 2019-09-20T10:36:48+00:00

I know way women who want to SAHM then men who want to have one IRL

Also "Feminism made you free. Now go and be free" @ /u/RStonePT

whibbleymoondanc · 2019-09-20T21:24:32+00:00

I talked to my grandmother who was 98 when she died, about life after WWII when men returned to jobs and women returned hone. She said most people she knew enjoyed working but wanted to be gone and raise families. As for finances, most women she knew were in charge of the finances and the men worked and handed over the paychecks. Obviously this is one woman’s experience and not every woman of the era. I was talking with one stay at home mother last week as she was walking around my neighborhood. She was with her mother and said that she was bored and lonely at home. Her mother said that there were so many other women at hone for play dates with the kids and that women don’t do that any more.

SFWonlyInvest · 2019-09-26T06:40:07+00:00

? Do you not understand how this kind of economic dependence leaves women vulnerable to manipulation and abuse

I’m down to dismantle the welfare state, let people truly be equal and see who rises to the top.

Kos_-_Omak · 2019-09-19T09:48:32+00:00

Children are vulnerable to manipulation and abuse at the hands of their parents. Dogs are vulnerable to manipulation and abuse by their owners. Elderly and mentally incompetent people are vulnerable to manipulation and abuse by their caretakers.

It sucks when it happens, but that's still better than the alternative: giving complete autonomy and independence to people (and dogs) who are inherently incapable of handling the power and responsibilities that go along with it. A child without adult supervision will wander out into traffic. An untrained dog without a master will bite people. Elderly people left alone will fall and break their hip.

It's the same for women. They need someone to control them. They need to have someone that they can submit to and obey. They actually want this too, and all the feminist BS is really just a way to test men so women can be sure that the man is strong enough for her to submit to.

Most of the problems in society exist because men are no longer allowed to control women in the way that they need to be controlled.