Hacker News Reader

Comment by imgabe | Hacker News Reader

It sounds like manufacturing jobs left, so the men have no jobs, but the women still have jobs. Yes?

Why won't the men compete for the jobs the women are getting?

Alternatively, the men could stay home and take care of the kids while the women work at the jobs they have, providing the stable two-parent household.

It seems like a large portion of the problem is tied up in men's idea of what constitutes a "manly" role. I don't mean to trivialize the difficulty of changing one's perspective, but changing diapers has to be a better option than dying from an Oxycontin overdose doesn't it?

View on HN

No matter how much feminism pretends otherwise, women are not keen to form lasting relationships with unemployed men.

The reality on the ground is that many women consider extended unemployment a good-enough reason to end a marriage.

A cynical but not unrealistic view is that humans tend to display loyalty to performed roles in relationships, not to individuals.

If one individual stops performing their assigned role, the relationship ends.

Feminism, the advocation of equal social and political rights for women? What does that have to do with wanting to form lasting relationships with unemployed men?

Because traditional gender roles dictate that the man in the relationship to be the breadwinner and being a bum doing nothing all day long wouldn't bode well for the woman in the relationship and given that feminists are against the status quo and traditional gender roles, it would look hypocritical that they disqualify a male suitor or partner for a romance or LT relationship based on their LT employment outlook or prospects.

Oh right, traditional gender roles. I thought this feminism was the advocation of equal social and political rights, but actually this is something else on top.

I seem to be an appallingly bad feminist. For me, it's about equal social and political rights, but it turns out it's really all about a whole lot of crazy stuff I don't understand. It's odd that the people who most loudly understand what feminism really is seem to be those opposed to it, and people who simply label themselves feminists (such as myself) end up mystified by where all this extra junk comes from. Sometimes I wonder if perhaps people aren't conflating advocation of equal social and political rights with a whole lot of other things, but it's generally not worth the conversation.

So have equal political and social rights been achieved yet? I'd assume that for political rights, the answer is yes. Not sure about social rights - could you elaborate?

I think you're more than capable of digging up answers to that question yourself. I do apologise if you're genuine; you seem genuine, and your website certainly paints you as a reasonable person, but I've just had too many bad experiences in such discussions online that I no longer engage in them. I'm sure you can imagine the kind of thing. HN in particular seems to suffer from it; a disturbing sense of perceived victimhood in some that poisons their conversation.

The problem with finding examples ourselves is that we don't know what you meant by the terms you used. I, for one, would have some difficulty drawing the line between "social equality" and "other stuff on top", such as getting rid of traditional gender roles.

(what I see as) the mainstream feminist position is that getting rid of traditional gender roles is essential to achieve equal social rights. It's not really equal if one can legally do a thing but everyone else will think it's innappropriate.

Thanks for giving the benefit of the doubt. What you describe as "political rights" I can get fully behind, and it seems to me we're mostly there yet. "Social rights" I'm genuinely not sure what you mean, it seems reasonable. But the problem is that a lot of contemporary feminism seems to entail a lot more (with some of which I disagree), that's why it would be important to understand what is meant by "social rights" here. But fair enough, HN might not be the best place to discuss that in detail.

It's also worth pointing out that there is no "feminism", any more than there is one "american". There are as many meanings and iterative ideas that get labeled as feminism(by originators, and relative strangers) as there are different people in this country.

There's a big gap between not-being-a-breadwinner and being a bum. My sister's ex stopped working and stopped looking for work. That in itself wouldn't have been bad -- they were financially ok. But, she would still come home from her long day of work and do the dishes and laundry and cook supper (for her a chore, not a hobby). I have other friends with unemployed husbands where the dad does 90% of the childcare and most of the housework, and that seems to work out pretty well. People like a team effort, regardless of who is doing what.

This. It is very common for guys who are out of work to be much less productive around the house despite having more time available to dedicate to housework. Tons of guys are not brought up doing housework and being detail-oriented about this stuff, so in a lot of relationships where the guy is at home more often (for whatever reason), he doesn't know how to pick up the slack at home.

I'm not saying this is because those guys are dumb or lazy or malicious; I have trouble with it and don't consider myself those things. My girlfriend and I try to split stuff up evenly (we both have jobs and neither of us likes housework, so we try to be fair), but I still find it hard to remember to do certain things that she has been doing for years (e.g. remembering to clean the toilet bowl), or I will not prioritize certain other things that she makes sure to do promptly (e.g. I will wait longer to do laundry). I am trying to pull my weight, but I can definitely tell that I am catching up to her in housework productivity. And, from most anecdotes I hear, this is a very common (though obviously not universal) phenomenon.

This is not to say that there are not other things wrapped up in this (people are attracted to roles, and I am sure plenty of women in traditional subcultures find jobless men just plain unattractive regardless of their value in other dimensions). But I can definitely see why someone who is already going to have to raise and provide for a kid would be reluctant to bring another person into a lifelong relationship when that other person (judging from widespread anecdotal evidence) will very likely not be much help at home while also not contributing a paycheck.

Housework is like a gas - it will expand to fill any volume of time that you are willing to allocate it. The dirty secret is that not doing some of it, or doing it on a more, eh, relaxed, timescale, doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

Results vary according to your & your partners levels of OCD, however...

Haha, I've always suspected that fastidious housekeeping could be a sort of Fisherian runaway [0], except it affects females more than males.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway

not only that, but new housework can be invented out of thin air to fit any sized time or money budget/surplus, which is what the entire home improvement / remodeling industry exists for.

Spot on. Is a little bit of dust on the furniture going to kill you? Sure I'm not proud of it but dusting it every single week religiously isn't something to be particularly proud of either.

I am trying to pull my weight, but I can definitely tell that I am catching up to her in housework productivity. And, from most anecdotes I hear, this is a very common (though obviously not universal) phenomenon.

How do we know that the solution is "men should do more housework" rather than "women should do less"? Is it really a disaster if the toilet bowl gets cleaned half as often?

Not only would it look hypocritical to not enter into a relationship because someone doesn't fit into traditional gender roles, it would disqualify one from being a feminist altogether.

That mentality is one of the reasons we need feminism. Women will only become increasingly equal to men as time goes on. If we blindly cling to antiquated, unrealistic notions of what constitutes an acceptable partner, we impede progress.

It's not even an issue of feminism or any other -ism.

It's statistics and sociology.

The last time I saw data on this, that was one of the most common causes.

I spoke to a divorce lawyer and as someone getting married in a few months I asked him what made marriages fail. He said that "It's mostly out of your control, when men come in it is mostly because their wife has been unfaithful. When women come in it is mostly because the man has lost his job." He also said that women seem to tolerate a great deal of infidelity on the part of the man up until the point where he stops earning.

Sort of makes me glad that I met my fiancee while I was very poor, hopefully I set the bar rather low.

If I knew my wife was considering divorcing me because because I lost my job, she wouldn't have to consider it any longer because I'd get the ball rolling.

I suspect that there are deeper compatibility issues at play and major events like infidelity or job loss just act as catalysts for divorce.

It's comforting to think that, but human nature is what it is. The typical woman would not immediately hire a divorce lawyer if her husband lost his job, but after a year or two she'd definitely be thinking she could do better (regardless of "fault").

I just think that's a very reductionist outlook.

Humans are complicated. They have a lot of different needs that all have complex relationships with one another. Everyone experiences theses needs to varying degrees. If the needs that aren't adequately satisfied aren't outweighed by those that are, then it's reasonable for a person to start looking elsewhere to satisfy those needs.

If my wife became a huge economic burden and wasn't contributing anything else to the relationship, then after a year or two I'd definitely be thinking I could do better.

If that were true, would it not be equally likely that husbands would initiate divorces when their wives lost their jobs, and women would initiate divorces when their husbands cheat? (I.e., a contradiction of GP's claim - but your comment doesn't sound like you intend to contradict him, but only explain the behavior he described.)

You could begin to support such an explanation by pointing out that less women work and so less women are able to lose jobs and so less men divorce them because of it. But that only explains half of the divorce inequalities described by GP. Do men really cheat significantly less than women?

So we arrive at a point where either it's more socially acceptable for women to divorce men because of job loss than the reverse (GP correct), or it's more socially acceptable for women to cheat than men (GP incorrect).

Conversely, either it's more socially acceptable for men to divorce women for cheating than the reverse (GP correct), or it's more socially acceptable for women to be unemployed than men (GP incorrect).

Interesting!

Of course, this is all based on anecdote. Also maybe I oopsed and strawmanned inadvertently.

What dates do you go on when you were dating her and poor? How did you leave "poverty"?

I think the best dates are essentially free. Go to a park with a bed sheet with the lunch you were going to eat anyway for example. That's only bus fare or gas as an input cost. Going to a bar and screaming over the music while you get shitfaced is no way to get to know someone.

As for how I got out of it. I got someone to give me my first job in IT. I was a cook prior to that. I'm not wealthy but I pretty much have everything I need.

What was the IT job like? I never heard of anyone going from cook to IT. Congrats.

I was the Sysadmin for a number of medical offices. I did a brief stop working in a colourant lab prior to that but cooked for nearly a decade prior.

Thank you.

What training or certifications did you participate in?

If he were honest he would have identified another category of woman: she has put up with her husband while building her career, but now that she has either succeeded or satisfied herself that she won't, she has had one or more kids and realized she doesn't have to stay married to receive the benefits of her husband's labor. Maybe there have been some recent 911 calls about "domestic violence"?

Although, as you say, that's still out of the husband's control.

Good point but there's nothing that precludes these assigned/expected roles in a LT relationship from changing or evolving in the future and for persons in the relationship to adapt to the new dynamics and realities.

Many of these thing are deep atavistic behaviours well rooted in our evolutionary past.

Very difficult to change in any meaningful way.

You'll have outliers, but statistically it will be insignificant.

This may be true now, but there's a trend of women accepting that a man earns less (or even sometimes doesn't have a job) as long as she doesn't yet want to have a baby, and the man looks hot. It's still all about supply and demand.

Seriously, where can I find those? It seems to be an incredibly good and responsible attitude that would radically change the face the world, and, as a man, I'm dying to see such behavior happen. Does this trend have newspapers or forums where they share this positive attitude, so I can witness it and bump up my faith in my future?

I think if you go 5 days a week to the gym for 2 years, and eat what's needed to get muscular, they will find you.

Provided you are of the right shade of color and tall enough.

In my experience the baby has nothing to do with it - I know at least 3 women who have married that guy+, and now have a happy marriage and a kid. 1 of them even describes himself as a house husband with a side gig. Money isn't everything - particularly if you have lots of it.

+ well hot, smart, and having lived interesting lives by 35. That describes all 3 of them.

I read an article recently saying that women want men to be the breadwinners and they also want them to do the housework. We can't win.

http://on.mktw.net/2li9AOT

The state has taken the place of the father as the primary bread-winner amongst the working class in the west. Prior to universal welfare most women would never have risked pregnancy outside a stable relationship because of the financial risks. There are no risks now, in fact there is actually an incentive single mothers get more money via state benefits that a single women with similar qualifications can earn in work.

We can, through automation of /everything/.

When there is no more work, in the house or out, all that is left is room for enlightenment or self-destruction.

    Some say the world will end in fire,
    Some say in ice.
    From what I’ve tasted of desire
    I hold with those who favor fire.
    But if it had to perish twice,
    I think I know enough of hate
    To say that for destruction ice
    Is also great
    And would suffice.

I rather think the choices are self-destruction through violent conflict and self-destruction through lack of purpose/lethargy. But maybe that's only nation states. Or maybe I just have an unreasonably glum view of human nature.

> No matter how much feminism pretends otherwise, women are not keen to form lasting relationships with unemployed men.

I am a feminist man and I would not be keen to form a lasting relationship with an unemployed woman unless she was already wealthy.

Maybe, but a lot of shit heads are unemployed, and a lot of men who become unemployed become shit heads too. I read in a related article posted here that most prime aged men who've given up on the labor market aren't doing more child care, aren't doing more work around the house, are watching more TV and using alcohol and drugs more. So, basically, they're shit heads, either because they're out of work or with that cause and effect flipped.

Edit, forgot to include the article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795397

Calling them shit heads for 'giving up' when they feel the deck is stacked against them is an oversimplification that avoids the issue. I think we're seeing in western culture what has been happening in Japan for the last 20 years. Herbivore men who simply evaluate the marketplace and decide giving up on working, women and a family and sticking to a life of video games is their best risk/reward option.

If you recall Maslow's hierarchy from high-school psychology, you will understand that if non-working men still have shelter and food (and television and internet in many cases) they have their most fundamental needs met. Internet (porn, games) provides sexual satisfaction and a sense of winning at something, leaving little in the way of motivational pressure to do more. TV is there as catch-all distraction in case lingering guilt remains.

Maslow's hierarchy is bunk nonsense.

Why do you think so?

The evidence doesn't justify it and there are more sophisticated theories that match up better. Furthermore the theory is quite centered around bourgeois western society. Maslow's hierarchy has a lot of prominence because it's peddled in shoddy high school curricula.

Is Wikipedia good enough?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

No, no I was calling them shit heads for their personality. This idea of a chronically out of work man whose wife leaves him isn't necessarily false, but also that it doesn't mean his wife left him because he's chronically out of work but because maybe he's a jerk. My mom and dad were married 30 years and for almost all that time my dad didn't work. She did leave him though, when he developed a meth habit and became delusional. Even though he didn't work, he did raise us kids, he did the shopping, the cleaning, the cooking, he ran the household. In other words he did what should be expected of someone in a genuine partnership: nothing more and nothing less than what he was able to do of what was needed. When he stopped doing that the partnership dissolved.

This "women want a higher earner" picture is a bit crude, and applying it to this situation ignores that men are often ass holes who aren't interested in a genuine partnership, and that category has some overlap with the chronically out of work.

"...feminism pretends otherwise..."

Source?

Women who don't date men without a job are like men won't date a woman with a career. There's plenty of sexism on both sides.

The simple reality is that women do not respect men they have to provide for.

> A cynical but not unrealistic view is that humans tend to display loyalty to performed roles in relationships, not to individuals.

>If one individual stops performing their assigned role, the relationship ends.

This is a very succinct way to describe reality.

Thank you for stating it so clearly.

Women are a lot more likely to go to college than men. [0] If you work in a factory, or planned to, you probably didn't go to college.

For all the attention that is given to the lack of women in CS and Engineering the story in aggregate for all majors is that women outnumber men at colleges. It's been that way since 2000 and the trend has continued in the past 17 years. Its to the point where women outnumber men two to one at some large schools like UNC which are, for example, 60% female. [1]

[0] https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html

Unfortunately one of the results of that trend has been a lot of young women with less-than-useful degrees and mountains of student loan debt, working rather low-paying jobs. Which, to be brutally honest, makes them rather unattractive marriage partners, all other things being equal.

Very important point. Unequal distribution in higher education will exacerbate the issues raised in this post. Unfortunately, we are looking at a near future where increasingly large percentage of unemployed people in the West will be young, sexually unsuccessful males.

Did you ever hear of a man losing his job, or getting ill, then shortly after his wife leaving? It's quite common.

It's very much both sex's perspective of role. Clichéd it may be, but there's a truth behind women preferring men with money, power or strength, or a combination of all.

Yeah, I've been saying this for 25 years... And that "Better Homes and Gardens" is just porn for females.

It's worth noting that job loss often results in depression, especially if finding another job isn't easy for the person. That also tends to be a reason for divorce.

The depression results from failing to meet societal expectation. For example, he fears his wife and society at large thinks he's a bum now. Whether or not it's true, the depression is a result of the gender role.

> Did you ever hear of a man losing his job, or getting ill, then shortly after his wife leaving? It's quite common.

Okay well how exactly "common" is it?

> but there's a truth behind women preferring men with money, power or strength, or a combination of all.

And men prefer attractive women...so what?

The majority of these men are uneducated and unemployed. The article states many are HIGH SCHOOL drop outs.

I'm a male. and I can tell you right now that I probably would not marry a female high school drop out.

The problem to me is not the women. it's that boys are being left behind in school and more work needs to be done to educate and re-purpose males from unskilled drones to skilled or white collar workers.

The thing is, if men switch roles with women, they will not be picked by them. Men are not selected for their capacity to stay at home raising kids. This will not change. So while what makes women attractive to men is still working (more than ever! Just look at Instagram), the opposite isn't holding true anymore. What is the man women are looking for now? The one with hundreds of thousands of instagram followers and gorgeous pictures. They just wanna enjoy this same fake happiness online together. How long is this behavior be mainstream? I don't know. What comes next can be even worse.

Humans are half-way between a tournament species and a pair-bonding species. Pair-bonding species certainly do select males for their ability to raise children. So to you I say, not all women!

Raising children as in a man raising a children: providing, protecting, inspiring, been a role model. Not preparing food or babysitting. I agree with the final part, though: not all women. but biologically, the separation of roles is really well defined by past evolution. Perhaps we are heading in a different path now, and I guess that we'll be able to understand it only retrospectively.

Otherwise said, you go to work and don't do anything child related at home - oh, except projecting the "I am awesome look at me" level of confidence. (How else do you 'inspire' when you refuse to spend time caring about them.)

Frankly, I would not want such father for my children.

Projected world != real world

Would you want an unemployed dude who smokes weed all day? Because that's the choice you're offered here! b^)

He/she wants a man that works, provides, inspires, has no vicious and also raise children. The very projected perfect man that is making men become less desirable partners.

While men still puts women's beauty as top (only?) priority.

You seem to conflate flicks or one-night stands and LT relationships. From my experience, women tend to choose marriage partners who are well-off and this is very understandable esp. in societies which are barely above the survival level or where women don't enjoy the full benefits and opportunities available to men.

I'm dating a gorgeous inspired woman. She doesn't have a Facebook account or an Instagram. I don't have a full time job. We have been living with my parents to save money during the winter, and bike touring / camping during the summer.

That is incredibly naive. Most women with a stay-at-home man become resentful and see them as a drain on their resources. They rarely succeed even if the man does the child raising household chores etc. Of course there are plenty of successful cases but they're in the minority. The reason why women don't marry men who don't earn more than them is because they want a successful guy, and by that they mean one that can earn more than them.

Is it just men's idea of a "man's role" that's a problem? The article seems to suggest women's preferences are also in play.

It's not just a changing of one's perspective. It's the destruction of your whole identity. It feels incredibly jarring and like you're going insane. It's what people with personality "disorders" have to go through to "fix" themselves to fit society.

You think it is men deciding not to marry, as in "no thanks, I'd rather be alone and unemployed than change diapers"?

The article said it is women making the decision.

Women marry up not down.

Or sideways. There's this tendency to look at the lower classes of history and assume that since we too are not 'the rich' our behaviour should follow the same patterns of our class in the past.

Today, the burden of household work has been cut to 1/10th of what it used to be, jobs are primarily intellectual, and education is paramount. The model to compare against is not the factory worker who was poor in the 1900s, and somehow due to a quirk of history became middle class in the 1950s.

We ought to compare against the gentleman class---those who in the 1900s had maids, butlers, personal transportation, and intellectual jobs akin to what we do today: management, clerking, accountancy, licensed professions, etc.

In those cases, people married sideways---intellectual women marrying men then helping to run the estate, daughters of merchants marrying other merchants and participating in the businesses, 'professional' socialites giving the entire clan a leg up by creating situations where networking was possible.

This is the position we have inherited, and if we must take lessons from the past--we should take lessons from the right class.

Sure, point is just very rarely do women marry down.

Sideways can include guys "of my class, but has fallen on hard-times". If a guy has some skills and all he really needs is a good network to help him find a job, that's fine too.

There's a lot more sideways than there is 'down'. Technically its pretty hard to even get to know people of a lower class than you; rarely do you mingle.

I haven't researched it deeply, but I wonder if it's better to assume that most two-parent families simply need two wage earners. Women tend to earn less than men, and might not be able to support kids plus a non employed husband on their income.

Anecdotally, I know at least two families in my neighborhood, in which the father stays home with the kids. One of the moms is a physician, and the other is a business executive.

The women don't have jobs either. But the state will provide a basic living if she has a child.

It's a real mess everywhere.

"Fewer men were working in manufacturing, which tended to mean their wages were lower than they had been when manufacturing had more of a presence in their area. And their wages were not significantly higher than women’s wages, which they had been during the heyday of manufacturing."

> Why won't the men compete for the jobs the women are getting?

Because different people are suited to different jobs. Why didn't (and don't) women generally compete for manufacturing jobs? Because being a creative designer or HR professional or pre-school teacher or dental hygienist is something much preferred for certain types of people. Just look at the numbers [1].

Men not only don't want to do certain types of jobs, but in many cases can't - they're not well-suited for them. So even if/when they compete, they'll lose to less experienced women just entering the workforce. And vise-versa for other types of jobs with flipped genders. There are gender differences, plain and simple. You can argue why they exist, but for this discussion it's not as relevant at this point.

I would like to note that the next "industrial wave" could affect women pretty hard as well: artificial intelligence. Recruiting and HR software, health-care robotics technologies, therapist chatbots, etc, could upend the female-dominated jobs listed in [1].

> Alternatively, the men could stay home and take care of the kids while the women work at the jobs they have, providing the stable two-parent household.

Heh, I guess you haven't read many women's online dating profiles for what is acceptable in a mate and what isn't. You generally have to be higher up on the ladder (education, wealth, status, etc) to attract a woman for mating in the first place. How this manifests in data: 80% of guys are "below average"! [2]

But who needs data, ask your grandfather if he could have "stayed home and taken care of the kids while the woman works" and he'd laugh at you and tell you to stop being a sissy. They may not have been able to explain it, but older generations have typically understood more about human nature than we give them credit for.

[1] https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/occ_gender_share_em_1020_txt.ht...

[2] https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0...

What 'average' is being highlighted? Is this an actual average, or a perceived one? Either way it sounds harsh and reminds me of that XKCD comic that concluded there was no way to win 'the game of love'.

Wait, you actually think that men are just so tied up in their gender role of "manliness" to enjoy the benefits of all of the reproductive success that low-paying jobs would afford them? So basically, you think men are given the following scenarios, but are choosing option A?

A) Be a man, don't compete for women's jobs, drink beer instead of going to work, likely don't have a girlfriend or get laid because you don't have your finances in order...

B) Be less of a man, compete for women's jobs, drink less beer and more wine at dinner parties, bite your tongue about the manliness and receive willing girlfriends and sexual partners...

Anyone with any sense will laugh at this above false choice implicitly being promoted.

Or what about, examining the sense of bitterness in yourself, so that you can hold yourself in esteem at dinner parties regardless of your work, or what you happen to be drinking, and enjoy the personal connections that develops, even if they don't result in getting laid

It doesn't seem like you're understanding my comment. I don't hold myself in low esteem - and the false choice I mentioned is about the political discourse I see, not any actual person. I'm curious how you're able to establish that I'm a bitter person - this just seems ad hominem.

> is tied up in men's idea of what constitutes a "manly" role.

or in women's idea of what constitutes a "manly" role.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com