Hacker News Reader

Comment by graemep | Hacker News Reader

Do the women have to be the "care taker" and the men the "provider"? The proportion of jobs in developed economies that require physical strength is much lower than it used to be.

As a man who has been the primary parent for most of my children's lives (my ex is not very good with older children) I find the assumptions people make annoying. People are surprised my younger daughter lives with me rather than her mother. They struggle to find words to describe a man as primary carer.

I think this is damaging to men - bringing up children is incredibly rewarding and men are given a smaller role in it. Its damaging to women too.

View on HN

Not everyone has to be - I do about half the childcare of my daughter and am often the odd-man-out at child activities. But most people have to be because that's what each sex wants. It's not a great plan to be looking for a partner by not having a job and telling everyone that your goal is to be a stay-at-home dad who wants a high-earning wife to support him. Women aren't interested in that.

That is true but it is exactly what I think the problem is.

Women do want careers as good as those of men. There are huge efforts made to equalise numbers of women in various careers (especially high paying ones and in senior positions).

I do not see how this can work without men taking on more traditionally female roles.

IMO we should make it more acceptable for men to be stay at home dads, just as we have made it acceptable (and entirely normal) for women to do a lot of traditionally male jobs.

Except these men taking on more traditionally female roles are not viewed as sexually attractive to women -- especially compared to more masculine men. What the OP wrote is basically the thesis of the Red Pill community. Leaving aside the sometimes toxic content, RPers really have pulled back the curtain on "what women want". The sheer amount of data collected via Internet dating in the last twenty years has provided more insight than ever. What they want in their professional lives does not always match what they want/need in their personal lives. Please, please, please: Do not read this post as blaming women. People are fully entitled to have their personal preferences when choosing whom to date -- be they reasonable or not. I am looking at the outcomes, less the cause or intent. The gender revolution that has allowed many more women to have more economically productive careers has a strange counterpoint: Economies can change (much) faster than culture. So yes, women have climbed the corporate ladder very quickly in the last 30 years (lots of change), but their dating preferences have changed much slower. You can see this in the number of high performing, professional women that struggle to find people they want to date.

> Women do want careers as good as those of men

Why would anyone choose the role of a provider if they aren't under a huge biological pressure to be one? All it does is offer an alternative way to slightly increase dating prospects.

My point is it social pressure, not biological. It is a product of cultural expectations.

> The proportion of jobs in developed economies that require physical strength is much lower than it used to be.

But some of those that still do are and always have been dominated by women: nursing for instance.

Nursing requires a lot more physical strength than a lot of newer jobs - any office job, most shop work etc. Nurses need to move people tc.

I would say that nursing is a good example of a female dominated job that ought to have more men in it, as greater strength is a huge advantage when, for example, moving/positioning someone.

I think you replied without understanding the context of the discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com