"... including the disproportionate amount of work that tends to fall on them at home. Sana Akhand, 33, who lived a 30-minute walk from her husband in New York City from October 2021 to June of this year, said that living apart allowed her to create the life she aspired to since girlhood, which included having a successful career in addition to finding love.... She said she [had begun] to lose her 'rebellion and independent nature' and 'just fell into super-traditional roles and paths of life, like being the wife.... Being a wife is subconsciously really draining, because you’re just thinking about this other person, their well-being,' Ms. Akhand said.... There are many factors that appear to contribute to making the model more socially acceptable. One is the growing visibility and acceptance of relationships that don’t look like the traditional heterosexual marriage, with all its attendant pressures and stereotypes..."
The comments over there stress something you're probably thinking: It's expensive to have 2 homes. And: If what you want to break free of stereotypical gender roles, why not change yourself right where you are? Why must you go away? But those are questions about what's easier and what's harder (and whether you must do everything the easy way).
With covid, things were not traditional. People were living together — and working in the same space — much more than is traditional. The old convention was for the husband and wife to have different spheres of activity during the day. I can see wanting a separate workspace at some location away from home as a way to get more of the old-time separation.
पोस्ट्स
१२८ टिप्पण्या:
Poor women. They always suffer the most don't they?
If they're single, that's bad. If they get married that's bad. If they get divorced, that's bad. If their husbands are away - that's bad. But if he's hanging around the house too much, that's bad too. If they work, they'r stressed out. If they stay at home, they're bored.
Its tragic. The life of the American woman.
At least the ones that read the NYT's.
If you don’t want be married, don’t get married.
Unless it's financially ruinous for him her husband will find a girlfriend or possibly another wife. Men usually don't get married with the intention of having a friend with benefits.
Do they explore the downside to this, or is it just another entry into the relentless campaign to destroy the marriage tradition of our ancestors?
“Being a wife is subconsciously really draining, because you’re just thinking about this other person, their well-being..”
Wow. Parse that.
Maybe just admit being married isn’t for you. No need to try to keep a label and then not live in a manner that label typically means. You do you, but why call it something else?m
Also, this isn’t real is it? This is like those fake Dear Abby letters.
The husband gets to have sex with the cleaning lady, so he gets something out of it, too.
The fallacy of reward without risk, of reaping all the upside while avoiding all costs. (Didn't Sam Bankman-Fried just get arrested and indicted for offering something like that?) The dream of a world of all joy, but no possible misery, of all beauty but no ugliness, of all gain but no pain. What a sales pitch.
A world of one point - no line, or plane, no space to traverse - just one point. And therefore a world of no life. A compound in one.
And let's be honest here- if you were married to Inga, Howard, Left Bank, Jim5301, or Mutaman, wouldn't you want that kind of arrangement?
Always about the disproportionate housework. I'd like to see a story acknowledge the hundreds of thousands of dollars the average man gives the average woman. And do so in a way that doesn't somehow twist it into further evidence of sexism.
Women initiate about 75% of divorces. Women with long commutes may not be able to handle work plus the rest of the day. People change over the course of their lifetimes. In this end this falls in the zone of uncertainty and could be the best for all involved. Or not.
Avoid "burdens" as in babies? NYT is braying the handmade tale that women, and men, possess neither dignity nor agency, in the modern model of diversity [dogma] (e.g. sexism, racism, ageism, class-based bigotry).
Gender roles as in sex-correlated feminine and masculine attributes is limited to "our Posterity". The advent of political congruence ("=") has deprecated sex in favor of gender conflation in order to normalize social contagion, sexual dysfunction, Levine mandates, and the wicked solution.
As for separate spaces and times, adults will reconcile as humans do but with maturity.
Men, women, and "our Posterity" are from Earth. Feminists are from Venus. Masculinists are from Mars. Social progressives are from Uranus.
Why not just be single?
“Being a wife is subconsciously really draining, because you’re just thinking about this other person, their well-being..”
Fortunately as a husband, I don't have this problem because I am never concerned with my wife or her well being nor does her presence in my life nor any concern for her enter into my having a job or how hard I work at it.
For someone who is claiming to be thinking of someone else, the author seems to really not spend a lot of time thinking about why that person does what they do.
"Being a wife is subconsciously really draining, because you’re just thinking about this other person, their well-being,'"
Just thinking about this other person! Their well-being! What an affront to autonomy! How draining! It's like pregnancy!
Ironically, liberal, notably progressive, women, and their ideological males partners, are, in the majority, advocating and voting for policies to resolve the insult(s) and collateral damage from the policies they advocated and elected.
"Do they explore the downside to this, or is it just another entry into the relentless campaign to destroy the marriage tradition of our ancestors?"
What's so sacrosanct about the "marriage tradition of our ancestors?" If people want to enter into marriages that deviate from the standard idea of marriage and they are happy, good for them. Why does anyone else have any reason to criticize them or scoff at their choices? Whatever works for any given couple is great...for them!
There seems to be a large issue about "What does the man bring to the marriage?". ignoring the equally big issue of "What, exactly, does the woman bring?"
Marriage seems like a horrible idea for a majority of men.
"Always about the disproportionate housework"
Several actual time use studies, here and abroad, showed no disproportionate work burden, since on average men still work longer hours, and documented increases in women's leisure over time, spent on TV before the advent of social media.
Why not just be single?
Because modern women want it all, they just want someone else to pay for it.
The key word here is support. They want someone else (a man) to pay for their lifestyle. It's why women vote for bigger government and why 50% of marriages end in divorce and the vast majority of time the wife receiving spousal support.
Not a recipe for a good marriage. A lot of people live apart together in the same house.
What a dramatically different way of thinking and relating than what seems normal and good to me.
This morning driving my teenager to school we talked about how her father has had the same job for 23 years and how “omg I never ever want that life” and I remarked “I see where you are coming from, but please consider that from the perspective that you have a father who cherishes and prioritizes you such that he’s gone to the same office every day for a quarter century in order to see that you are safe, healthy and happy. You are lucky to have such a father, and he is lucky to have someone whose love and promise is worth that sacrifice.”
It’s a tremendous blessing to have people worth caring about in our lives. I can’t imagine feeling toward my husband “Gawd being concerned for your well being is such a distracting pain in the ass!” What a sorry, hollow way to live.
"... in addition to finding love...."
I did not pierce the paywall to see if she found love with someone other than her husband.
Do you think the NYT would portray that as a negative?
Like gender, it appears marriage means whatever you choose it to be.
Be single, narcissistic woman, and leave the caring for the other person to responsible, grounded and happy loving couples who are capable of that way of living.
Not that the author of that piece (or the woman who was the subject of that piece) are likely to have a long marriage--but they fail to understand some things. In a long marriage (my wife and I just went past our 57th anniversary) roles change over time. The two of us got married after college graduation--and just a week before I entered law school. She worked and I went to school. She characterized that as "I put him through law school" and yes she did. My job was to study. After law school I worked at my career--and she made a home and we raised our children. Raising children was an interesting experience and she carried much of the load. One of our children observed that "Dad wasn't around much due to career demands, but when he was home, he was home". Somehow it worked out. When the youngest was in high school my wife went back to work. She's a very able and skilled person and no doubt would have had a sterling business career. But life is about choices, and a long marriage is a partnership with shared goals--and shared rewards.
As one of the earlier commenters said "You do you". And what works or worked for you may not work for others.
Who cleans the apartment where she's living alone?
This is one of those articles that really makes me miss The Last Psychiatrist's posts.
"If they're single, that's bad. If they get married that's bad. If they get divorced, that's bad. If their husbands are away - that's bad. But if he's hanging around the house too much, that's bad too. If they work, they'r stressed out. If they stay at home, they're bored.
Its tragic. The life of the American woman."
Ha. Perfect.
That's all right, some other women will be happy to cover for her.
That's just the way it is. You live together to keep an eye on him.
NYT people are silly.
My partner and I recently moved from a 1700 sq ft house to a 750 sq ft apartment - we are waiting for our next house to be built. All told, we'll be in this apartment for nearly a year.
My first thought reading this was: NYC = small spaces. Two strong personalities in one small space - I can see the benefits of two apartments. A house lets each person carve out their own space.
I am sick of hearing of 'women's domestic burden' - especially in pairings with no children. Some women have insane cleaning standards and can't grasp that men are not women. For every woman complaining of the 'emotional burden' there is a man carrying the full burden of 'house listening'.
Being a wife is subconsciously really draining, because you’re just thinking about this other person, their well-being,
While it might be counterintuitive, it isn't impossible to learn the truth that thinking of other people and their well-being is the most life-giving and renewing posture one can ever be in. You want misery and depressing? Collapse into the posture of thinking only of yourself and what you want and what you aren't getting and what you find annoying and what burdens you. YOU, YOU, YOU: an island of pure lethargic, depressing misery. The secret of a peace-filled and joyful life is hidden if one won't take a leap of faith, get over oneself, and actually look more to others' wellbeing then your own.
old: Staying at home, and taking care of it while my husband works is TOO MUCH!!
new: Staying at home, and taking care of it while my husband works (and lives away) is Just Prefect!
now! with the husband out of the picture, the woman has time to cook/clean/work/raise kids
Does This make sense, to Anyone? How much Less housework is there without the husband around?
Who mows? Who shovels? Who takes out garbage? Who kills spiders?
I love how they illustrate the one couple by showing the wife in her home being a cat lady, freed from those pesky kids and husband. She probably has one of those lifesize husband-shaped pillows for after the Times leaves. Perfect.
Now she has to clean 2 houses...
I live in the East Wing and my wife gets the South Wing.
We meet in the Excelsior Room for dinner.
Problem solved.
Classic NYT ….
Why does anyone read this garbage?
If this works then maybe you aren't meant to be divorced after all.
2 Christmas trees! But it appears that Santa will be going to his place to fill the stockings.
Not coincidentally run on the day the White House is hosting Marti "The kids are out to sing and suck d!" Cummings for the signing of the "Respect for Marriage Act."
Please tell me these are the End Times.
Enjoy your cats...
The NY Times seems to be an endless fount of crap. And their readers have an endless appetite for it.
Now she has to clean 2 houses...
Yes, that follows from NYT's thesis.. assertion of toxic... lethargic masculinity. That said, keep women affordable, available, and taxable, and the "burden" of evidence aborted, perhaps cannibalized, then sequestered in darkness.
The NY Times seems to be an endless fount of crap. And their readers have an endless appetite for it.
Robert Cook said...
What's so sacrosanct about the "marriage tradition of our ancestors?
Traditional Marriage was one of the most powerful positive transformations in the history of the human race on a societal level leading to incredible improvements in human happiness and health.
For most of history societies and cultures were dominated by a very small number of powerful men.
This led to systems where the majority of breeding age women were owned and controlled in harems and other similar systems of control.
This leads to several obvious issues many of which invariably lead to war. Most men only have access to women when they defeat a neighboring tribe and take them for example.
Additionally once women in the harem were past breeding age their prospects were grim and most spent the last parts of their lives in prostitution keeping armies at home from preying on the local population.
The benefits to a happy peaceful society of Traditional Marriage are incalculable.
gilbar said...
Who mows? Who shovels? Who takes out garbage? Who kills spiders?
I have to save the spiders from my wife.
But if the cat brings in a present to show her love for the family I have to deal with that.
Men usually don't get married with the intention of having a friend with benefits.
Yes, be wary of anyone who exercises liberal license to indulge diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry) for social progress and other purposes.
That said, equal in rights and complementary in Nature/nature, men, women, and "our Posterity" are from Earth, where we reconcile as humans do.
Being a wife is subconsciously really draining, because you’re just thinking about this other person, their well-being,' Ms. Akhand said...
I think there are a bunch of women that need to be shipped to Afghanistan for a while.
They will become much more appreciative of Traditional Marriage.
Enjoy your cats...
Worn as pussy hats.
Yawn, let me know when the complaining feminists include mowing the lawn, raking leaves, shoveling snow, and restaining the deck among “household chores.” Everything mechanical in the house maintains itself, right?
Bill was “alone together” with Monica.
Who knows why people do such things?
Maybe the His & Whores towels last birthday.
These are the women who voted for Biden.
Years ago I had a neighbor couple who were married but lived separately. They felt they had a great marriage. Much better than when they lived together.
But this nonsense? Supposedly women do most of the housework, but I've never seen a study that didn't define housework as work traditionally done by women--meaning all the things traditionally done by men were defined out of the study. Not counted towards the man's contribution.
And this hot mess: "Being a wife is subconsciously really draining, because you’re just thinking about this other person, their well-being,'
Having to actually think about another person! Oh my god, what a nightmare! My condolences to the husband. Living separately, it might be a while before he realizes what a mistake he's made.
Quiet Quitting
"Being a wife is subconsciously really draining, because you’re just thinking about this other person, their well-being,"
In other words, from a Christian perspective, "being a wife" is the whole point of life. Or as my boys were taught to pray at their Jesuit HS (where they were also told to be "men for others" over and over):
Lord, teach me to be generous.
Teach me to serve you as you deserve;
to give and not to count the cost,
to fight and not to heed the wounds,
to toil and not to seek for rest,
to labor and not to ask for reward,
save that of knowing that I do your will.
This woman makes a specious argument - all show and no depth. That’s fine, she has the right to be a shallow person. What’s troubling is that some people take her argument as a deep analysis.
Personally, I feel sorry for people like her. On her deathbed, will she be sorry she didn’t get enough “me” time? Or that her cat will miss her?
Separate rooms for much of the day (or night) is understandable; permanent separate addresses = you're dating, not married.
"Marriage seems like a horrible idea for a majority of men."
And yet, men without women seem generally to be more unhappy than women without men.
Disproportionate housework? Does the woman living apart have a hired housekeeper?
This is a modern expression of a fairly common old reality. People used to take long time traveling and that left spouses far apart for extended periods. Work too. Wives of sailors, for instance, would be on their own for months or years. Current military deployments and so many other jobs, roles, tasks, opportunities create this situation, and while some bristle at it, not everyone does. And for those who like the idea but don't have to live far apart? Well, if you can afford it, it can make sense.
For spouses who are both strong introverts this can even work out well. The husband doesn't need to be lonely, he could enjoy the quiet space as well.
This is also, I think, something that folks outside of big cities can do without being dramatic about it. Bigger houses and more land makes for more space to find your own little world within the shared property. A lot harder to do in city apartments.
Having to think about someone else all the time. The horror.
And of course men never do that. I can't remember the last time I thought about any of my wife's needs.
mtp said...
Always about the disproportionate housework. I'd like to see a story acknowledge the hundreds of thousands of dollars the average man gives the average woman. And do so in a way that doesn't somehow twist it into further evidence of sexism.
********
A "study" on disproportionate housework" did not acknowledge the many chores and repairs men do, claiming that since men liked doing them, they didn't count in the tally!
See for yourself:
https://www.lifeofdad.com/these-chores-dont-count-on-mens-hidden-second-shift/
IOW it's bullshit...bullshit all the way down.
Whatever works.
I think it's great.
"Married" for selfish reasons.
This will work out just dandy.
Astonishing how few times the word "children" appears in any of this. Is the chief end of man to pursue self-gratification and leave nothing behind - or no one behind? Is marriage nothing more than date nights and booty calls?
It was probably a lot cheaper than a divorce, and he probably still gets laid, from time to time. So it sounds like a win-win.
Isn't it more work to live apart? Then you alone are responsible for every chore in the house.
Waddaya expect. Civilization was the triumph of the Beta males whom are misogynistic because they are cowardly putzes living lives of quiet desperation. Who wants to babysit that?
"Isn't it more work to live apart? Then you alone are responsible for every chore in the house."
How to do less work doing 100% of the work at your own place vs. 50% of the work at a shared place. Have these things be true of your separate place and not true of the shared place:
1. Shoes are taken off at the door.
2. No pets.
3. No eating except at the kitchen/dining table
4. Eat small, simple meals, preferably with no cooking
5. Drink only water — use the same glass all day
6. Don't have hobbies/activities that involve various objects that get out of place
7. Keep everything picked up and clean as you go along
8. Don't have guests.
Surprise! There are pretty much no "chores" to speak of.
And the psychological benefit is a bonus: Everything that needs to be done is because you yourself caused that need, so you never feel any annoyance about anyone tracking anything in or getting stuff out and not putting it away or using lots of utensils while cooking and slopping foodstuffs about.
Keeping a solitary place clean can be a lowkey meditative ritual. Sharing housework with a spouse creates a risk of all sorts of resentments and calculations.
But for those who share, let me say that I think both of you should have the attitude of doing more than your share and never wanting to be the one who allows the other to feel that you taking advantage.
Ha! She thinks wives are burdened? Try being a husband.
What's so sacrosanct about the "marriage tradition of our ancestors?"
Because it has been shown to work since the Miocene.
@Mike, 57? You and your lady are to be congratulated!
"Being a wife is subconsciously really draining, because you’re just thinking about this other person, their well-being..."
Yes, and??? The greatest blessing of my life is to be married to this man I live with. Of course I'm always thinking about him, his well-being. I LOVE him! And he loves me, and shows me that every day.
I get sad thinking of that dark coin that Fate will flip some day---heads, I go first; tails, he does. If it's tails, then I won't have another person to think of every day, to seek his well-being every day. It's a curse to have no one to "do for."
Who are all these oppressed women? I'm sick of this "women always get the shitty end of the stick" framing of every minute of their lives. When I want to do something independent, he's supportive. When I wanted to stop working for seven years to take care of our kids, he was supportive.
Sharing a house with a woman means you get yelled at for the chores you do because you don't do it right and she has to redo everything. It ends up being easier to not do anything because she's just going to bitch about it anyway.
They will become much more appreciative of Traditional Marriage.
Traditional human relationships are not the handmade tale. We are not children anymore, yet a minority defer to experts into adulthood. One step forward, two steps backward.
You live together to keep an eye on him.
And him, her... ideally, 'till death do us part.
From Our Hostess at 12:34
"How to do less work doing 100% of the work at your own place vs. 50% of the work at a shared place. Have these things be true of your separate place and not true of the shared place:
1. Shoes are taken off at the door.
2. No pets.
3. No eating except at the kitchen/dining table
4. Eat small, simple meals, preferably with no cooking
5. Drink only water — use the same glass all day
6. Don't have hobbies/activities that involve various objects that get out of place
7. Keep everything picked up and clean as you go along
8. Don't have guests.
Surprise! There are pretty much no "chores" to speak of.
And the psychological benefit is a bonus: Everything that needs to be done is because you yourself caused that need, so you never feel any annoyance about anyone tracking anything in or getting stuff out and not putting it away or using lots of utensils while cooking and slopping foodstuffs about.
Keeping a solitary place clean can be a lowkey meditative ritual. Sharing housework with a spouse creates a risk of all sorts of resentments and calculations."
That would explain why you can blog so much.
"But for those who share, let me say that I think both of you should have the attitude of doing more than your share and never wanting to be the one who allows the other to feel that you taking advantage."
This is great advice and something that I and my girlfriend/partner try to live by. But if I was still living by myself the list above
would not apply.
I don't like to go barefooted or sockfooted. I wear shoes, and I don't like to change shoes.
I like having pets, just not as many as we currently have.
I eat where I damned well please.
I cooked when I live by myself and I do nearly all the cooking now. Pam cleans up. She cleans up so well sometimes she washes the same dishes/utensils two or three times in the course of some of my/our more elaborate preparations.
I don't like water. Water is for taking medicine and making tea or coffee.
Activities like reading perhaps. I must admit books are everywhere.
Keep everything picked up is good advice but my failure here could be classified as a mortal as opposed to venial sin.
That list, especially when you included the meditative ritual part sounds like the rules for a religious order.
I suppose these couples had very little sex to start with. They were essentially living as roommates to begin with. Whatever. I mean when my grandparents got really old they had separate bedrooms because my grandpa snored so loudly. But the younger couples? Alright I guess.
I suppose these couples had very little sex to start with. They were essentially living as roommates to begin with. Whatever. I mean when my grandparents got really old they had separate bedrooms because my grandpa snored so loudly. But the younger couples? Alright I guess.
What's so sacrosanct about the "marriage tradition of our ancestors?" If people want to enter into marriages that deviate from the standard idea of marriage and they are happy, good for them.
What Achilles said, only louder. For a leftie, Cook is usually not entirely unreasonable, but this shows a remarkable failure to grasp the basics. In the historical span of the existence of hominids, the current level of the safety, prosperity, and well-being of females is only a recent improvement. That can only be attributed to the “marriage tradition of our ancestors”, and those ancestors do not extend as far back as Fred Flintstone’s contemporaries.
- Krumhorn
Ann Althouse said...
But for those who share, let me say that I think both of you should have the attitude of doing more than your share and never wanting to be the one who allows the other to feel that you taking advantage.
For this to work you need to express gratitude and appreciation for the things that your partner does.
The problem with the women that read the NYT's is they are incapable of doing this.
I am as far to the left of the introvert range as you can get, and about 95% to the right on the empathy curve. I have to deal with the balance between caring that the empathy forces and the selfishness that is natural to the introvert.
I would not be as happy or as healthy without the anchor that my wife and my kids provide.
These women that are reading the NYT's and living alone are indulging in selfishness. Additionally they are also choosing a biologically meaningless existence.
It would be fine if they just sat alone with their cats.
But they don't. They vote for corrupt shitheads and rapists like Joe Biden and they are all actively trying to tear apart institutions like Traditional marriage that are improving the health and happiness of the entire Human population.
"...marriage — love, commitment, support"
“You Keep Using That Word[s]. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.”
And let's be honest here- if you were married to Inga, Howard, Left Bank, Jim5301, or Mutaman, wouldn't you want that kind of arrangement?
No. I'd choose the hemlock.
"Wanting your cake and eating it" is not unknown, but most adults grow out of that.
Why does the New York media focus on (or just plain know) so many neurotic and infantile people?
Mike at 10:21am. CONGRATS on 57 years. That is fabulous!
And women, in search of their own space, are driving the increase"
If this can’t be claimed to be true this story doesn’t make it to print.
In other news, women are opting out of the marriage market because their careers are so fulfilling.
It has nothing to do with men not asking them.
"That's all right, some other women will be happy to cover for her."
That's the damn truth.
Jim at said...
And let's be honest here- if you were married to Inga, Howard, Left Bank, Jim5301, or Mutaman, wouldn't you want that kind of arrangement?
No. I'd choose the hemlock."
Diet or regular? I forget who was the original poster who has the list of grievance mongers but all the same their is a lid for every pot difficult as that maybe to believe but I would reasonably presume they too have a significant other.
Jim at said...
And let's be honest here- if you were married to Inga, Howard, Left Bank, Jim5301, or Mutaman, wouldn't you want that kind of arrangement?
No. I'd choose the hemlock."
Diet or regular? I forget who was the original poster who has the list of grievance mongers but all the same their is a lid for every pot difficult as that maybe to believe but I would reasonably presume they too have a significant other.
"Living apart can be a way for women to reap the benefits of marriage — love, commitment, support — while avoiding the burdens that traditionally come with being a wife including the disproportionate amount of work that tends to fall on them at home."
No problem. So long as they're willing to give up on the financial support disproportionately tends to fall on husbands.
Disproportionate housework is another way of saying that only a wife gets to decide what the appropriate level of cleanliness must be, and a husband is obligated to do half that work even though only the wife benefits from the extra work.
With issues that aren't dominated by the feminist, it's better practice to do a benefit/cost analysis and not just a cost analysis.
Women generally desire a lot more housework be done. Check out the amount of cleaning most men do when living by themselves or rooming with other guys. That's how much cleaning they are comfortable with. They simply don't care enough about making their space cleaner to do any more work. In short, they get no significant benefit from work expended to make the home cleaner than that base level. We can discern this by how they actually lived.
If his comfort level can be stated as a 2 of 10, he'd be happy to do half that work. The problem is that his wife demands that the level of cleanliness is an 8. She, and she alone, decides that whatever level appeals to her must be the level for their home. Because she is the queen and he is the servant. Note, women don't even realize that they are imposing their own personal preference because, in their minds, whatever they desire is "simply the way it's supposed to be."
When a wife complains, what she is upset about is his failure to do half of the work necessary to make her happy -- to make the home an 8. Even though he doesn't really care about the extra clean and gets no real benefit from it.
She's pissed because he doesn't do whatever work she demands despite the fact that she is the only one in the marriage who benefits from that work being done. If he were a good husband, he would do whatever work she demands to make her happy. Who cares what he wants? He doesn't get a vote.
And some people wonder why men don't seem to want to get married these days. Huh.
So what do these women think they bring to the partnership?
Krumhorn is usually one of the smarter deplorables but not today. Let me give you a clue fly boy life sucked for everybody 150 years ago man woman child. Once humans figured out to stop drinking water from where we shit, life got a whole lot better for everybody. Once the water was cleaned up then people drank a whole lot less alcohol and all of you beta males quit beating the crap out of your wives.
“Being a wife is subconsciously really draining, because you’re just thinking about this other person, their well-being..”
There were several thoughts that came to mind as I read this.
1) Men working long hours and dangerous jobs to provide for their families aren’t thinking of other people? Really? Because most family men I know could live quite happily and comfortably on a fifth of their current incomes if they weren’t doing it for the wife and kids.
2) So little miss princess and the pea ditches the housework and goes to a boring job in a cubicle making power points. Is it not draining to spend eight hours a day thinking of your boss’s needs?
3) doesn’t this pathetic whining sound just like Hillary Clinton when she claimed that women were the primary victims of war because all their husbands and sons and boyfriends were killed.
Mind your own business said:
"...So what do these women think they bring to the partnership?"
I'll tell you when you're older.
"If he were a good husband, he would do whatever work she demands to make her happy. Who cares what he wants? He doesn't get a vote."
"Happy wife, happy life" is a well-known saying. Is there a comparable one for husbands?
"...So what do these women think they bring to the partnership?"
Equal in rights and complementary in Nature/nature... notably "our [unPlanned] Posterity", NOW lamented by Schumer, of all people, as "our [Planned] Posterity" that is a first-order forcing of catastrophic anthropogenic progressive viability with "benefits" observed as social contagion, sexual dysfunction, and the wicked solution to remove "burdens" in the modern family with secular precedents.
Howard, the Roman's figured that out thousands of years ago, as did the Egyptians and Japanese before them. And then civilization broke down, from within, through a failure of culture, such as we are seeing begin now. Nothing to do with drinking water or newly discovered, in an historical sense, spousal abuse.
Do you really think women (or wifes) only started getting physically assaulted in 1875???
Being a wife is subconsciously really draining, because you’re just thinking about this other person, their well-being,' Ms. Akhand said
With an attitude like this, I don't she'll have to worry about being married much longer.
If you care about another person, it's fun to care about that other person. Maybe not if tragedy has struck, but normally, yes. Why wouldn't it be?
The thing that strikes me whenever I read these missives from Big-F Feminism or Femininity is the deeply narcissistic self-centeredness that they all haven in common, never, ever looking outwards to examine the very real biological constraints that have actually militated for all these features of our societies.
Modern feminism refuses to observe that they aren't the only ones constrained and restricted by traditional roles. Nor do the self-centered creatures ever bother to question their own premises or viewpoints, being entirely unable to call up the slightest bit of actual introspection or empathy for the "other" that they possess all of this vicious hatred and vituperation for. They project onto the men in their lives the same vacuous mindset they themselves possess, unable to process that they're actually taking part in a dance down the generations whose steps aren't consciously laid out by anyone but Nature herself. It isn't the fault of "men" or this imaginary "patriarchy" that things are set up like this, within our sexually dimorphic species. That's just the way the biological cookie crumbled; denial of it is like railing against the tides, and likely to get precisely the same result.
The time may come when we transcend our biology. That moment is not here, and may never arrive. Until then, a successful social structure relies on men doing man things and women doing woman things, particularly when it comes to raising the next generation. You don't have the luxury of ignoring that "minor problem", if you want to have a lasting social structure to be around in your old age. The future belongs to those who bother to show up for it, and if you don't bother? You won't have a future.
It's an ugly truth, but there it is. Biology is a bitch. Either you live within its constraints, or you die out as a society while another, more successful model comes in and either conquers you or supplants you.
“ Activities like reading perhaps. I must admit books are everywhere.”
Here my chore-avoidance tip would be to think of books as decor even when they are piled on tables or wherever.
Howard said...
Krumhorn is usually one of the smarter deplorables but not today. Let me give you a clue fly boy life sucked for everybody 150 years ago man woman child. Once humans figured out to stop drinking water from where we shit, life got a whole lot better for everybody. Once the water was cleaned up then people drank a whole lot less alcohol and all of you beta males quit beating the crap out of your wives.
Howard provides an important service to this blog.
He shows everyone how stupid, mean, and critically incapable democrats in general are.
“ I suppose these couples had very little sex to start with. “
Maybe. But it could be sexy to have your lover not there all the time but a 30 minute walk away.
Modern Western societies exist in deepest denial of basic biological facts. Taking virtually every young woman out of the reproductive game during the most fertile and healthiest part of her life has costs across society. This is not "fair", but then nothing about biology is. You may gain personal freedom in your youth, but due to the deleterious effect of your personal choice to opt for the various "freedoms", all of society suffers the costs for those choices.
At some point, there's an inevitable crossover point between where the benefits of personal freedoms and license starts to affect society as a whole, and I would submit that there will have to be a certain bloody-minded and cruelly cold calculation set made in reference to all of this. Either that, or your society crumbles around you with the long-term accrued damages resultant from every young woman "doing her own thing".
We've spent several generations making believe that biologic facts had no bearing on our choices, that there were no constraints upon our selfish desires. South Korea, for example, currently has a fertility rate of .81, reported this past year in August of 2022. This is very much a harbinger of far worse things to come, and it's a huge question as to whether or not we can come back from these numbers. Once a society goes down this path, there is no historical precedent whatsoever showing that it's even possible to come back from it all.
We've got seventy years of the Malthusian idiots predicting disaster, coupled with the environmentalist freakazoids claiming that the end times were upon us. This has had far-reaching effects; I can think of an even dozen young women and couples of my acquaintance who've decided they shouldn't bring children into this world, and who are not going to do so. Where's that going to leave us, as a society, in another fifty or so years?
Sad news for all of the happy-dappy types who "want it all": It simply isn't possible, and never was. There are costs to be paid, balances to be struck, and we've ignored it all in the service of personal gratification for a bunch of people who have really failed to perform as promised across the broadest swath of society. How much "benefit" was there from taking women out of the home, putting them into the work force, and drastically reducing the opportunities for young males? Have we accrued net benefits, across society? Or, did we screw everything up with that choice?
I'd never argue for the constructs built around the supposed "patriarchy", but I'm afraid that the things they've thrown up in replacement aren't actually working. The current birth rates in nations like South Korea speak for themselves. Things aren't working. For anyone.
Remains to be seen how this will all play out, but I don't think it's going to have a negligible effect on society. As with much of the change they've wrought on our legal system, the net effects of their ideas are going to be years in coming, and will likely leave a lot of people badly screwed over, worse than they were during the supposed "bad old days". I can see some very draconian things coming down the pike, as the politicians try to grapple with declining birth rates. It won't be mere tax incentives that get laid on, as the bite hits. I fully expect that there will be actual legal requirements to reproduce, with vicious punishments laid on for those who decline to do so.
People are going to look back on these days of ours as being childishly feckless and irresponsible, and it won't be for the things we've dredged up out of our imaginations.
“For spouses who are both strong introverts this can even work out well. The husband doesn't need to be lonely, he could enjoy the quiet space as well.”
“This is also, I think, something that folks outside of big cities can do without being dramatic about it. Bigger houses and more land makes for more space to find your own little world within the shared property. A lot harder to do in city apartments.”
That’s our solution. Two relatively large houses (together roughly 7k sq ft). One for summer and one for winter. I am there if she needs me, but overall, I live upstairs and she lives downstairs. And then we have family time 7-9/10 pm every night. She needs me more these days, so I spend most of the day in the house, or, in MT, my garage next door.
Both of us are fairly introverted, or at least happily mostly live in our own heads. I bought her 1800 sq ft house from her a bit over 20 years ago, and she moved into one that was maybe 1k sq ft. She hated it. Too closed in. Plus it was supposedly over an old Indian burial site… This works out well for us, this somewhat detached living situation. There is most often someone there for you, just not in your face. I have bought walkie talkies a couple times. She prefers calling me on the phone, even though I am just upstairs.
Interesting that what they seem to like is the same arrangement Mia Farrow and Woody Allen had.
Althouse said:
3. No eating except at the kitchen/dining table
4. Eat small, simple meals, preferably with no cooking
5. Drink only water — use the same glass all day
So, we're supposed to adopt a Spartan regimen regarding food and drink, as practiced by a woman who says she has no sense of smell and thus doesn't taste much of anything?
geddouddaheah!!
Diet or regular? I forget who was the original poster who has the list of grievance mongers but all the same their is a lid for every pot difficult as that maybe to believe but I would reasonably presume they too have a significant other.
I understand your point. Was making a little play on an old joke.
"Here my chore-avoidance tip would be to think of books as decor even when they are piled on tables or wherever."
Exactly!
Another advantage of physical books, other than ornamenting your apartment, is that when you are reading one in a coffee shop, or lay it on the counter when you are placing your order, people strike up conversations, and some of them are pretty great.
Takirks makes an important point. The couple in the NYT story is not having children. Americans are not reproducing themselves and will eventually die out as a result. The invasion of people crossing the Southern border could replace the children Americans are not having. The problem is that the South American birth rate is only slightly above 2, which is not good enough. However, the invasion is not just South Americans but also trekkers from Africa, where women have an average of 4.2 children.
Demographics is destiny. One of the reasons Russia is having military problems is that they are short of men. Their fertility rate is 1.6, which means they are dying out and lack the manpower for sustained war. They’re drafting retirees to fight.
The American fertility rate is roughly the same: 1.6. This is not a big problem with our hostess, who’s 71 years old. But it is for people in their 20s or 30s who may want to retire and collect their social security benefits.
Sub-Saharan Africa has by far the highest fertility rate. If current trends continue, my grandchildren may depend on the benevolence of the grandchildren of Africans crossing the Southern border, who will continue to spend enough time together to reproduce.
Forget about global warming. The end of Western Civilization will come from ideas born on the pages of the NY Times.
"Here my chore-avoidance tip would be to think of books as decor even when they are piled on tables or wherever."
Substitute "dirty dishes" for "books". Will that work?
Takirks said, “ I fully expect that there will be actual legal requirements to reproduce, with vicious punishments laid on for those who decline to do so.”
I am reminded of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where reproduction and child rearing was handled in a lab, thus freeing adults to have all the sex and drugs they wanted.
“ So, we're supposed to adopt a Spartan regimen regarding food and drink, as practiced by a woman who…”
I never said I did all these things. They were just some tips about avoiding housework by making tasks unnecessary. I do some of them, but not all. You can probably think of others. The idea is not to make work for yourself. You don’t have to clean what doesn’t get dirty. Use fewer dishes. Keep foodstuffs under control.
That's a lot of words to describe CUCK.
Where's that going to leave us, as a society, in another fifty or so years?
Sadly I think it's too late to save the republic and the country. Demographics bears a part.
My hope is that before the collapse, Musk and others succeed in opening up space to colonization. These colonies on the frontier will carry our civilization forward and will look back on the United States the same way many of us look back at Great Britain.
Another brick in the Covid-era-response wall — ignore the downside. It’s for others to find out. Come to think of it this eff the downside attitude seems a gift of feminism, culminating in the Covid-response tsunami of idiocy.
For most of history societies and cultures were dominated by a very small number of powerful men.
This led to systems where the majority of breeding age women were owned and controlled in harems and other similar systems of control.
(...)
[O]nce women in the harem were past breeding age their prospects were grim and most spent the last parts of their lives in prostitution keeping armies at home from preying on the local population.
The benefits to a happy peaceful society of Traditional Marriage are incalculable.
Achilles's response to Cook's "What's so great about traditional marriage?" It deserved to be repeated in near entirety.
There is a reason I'm conservative: it's because conservatism is the maintenance of that which works. It doesn't mean no change; it means change when there's evidence, over time, that change is beneficial.
The point here is, Cook, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or, don't take down the wall until you know what it's there for. Or, don't fix what ain't broken. Pick your cliche; they all work, to varying degrees. Monogamous heterosexual marriage arose and took over the world because it works, on many levels from the individual to the community to the society to the species; you f with that at humanity's peril.
We are fortunate, imo, that we are so stable that we can accommodate some variations on that theme - but if too many people embrace childlessness or too many people decide that the occasional adolescent hormone-storm-driven foray, in reality or in imagination, into sexual experimentation means sterility-rendering surgical/medical changes are a must, we die. In poverty and loneliness.
""Happy wife, happy life" is a well-known saying. Is there a comparable one for husbands?
Why yes, there is and thanks for asking:
"Shut up and get back to work"
"Sharing housework with a spouse creates a risk of all sorts of resentments and calculations."
How's it going, Meade?
It'd all be amusing, watching the idiocracy (which is what I'd call our "leadership" class, these days...) re-invent the wheel yet again and again. Except for the minor flaw that they're bankrupting us while they do it, and immiserating the entire body politic to do so.
The raw fact is that a solid 90% of the changes we've made to society aren't working out, and will continue to "not work out" over the medium-term future.
At some point, we're going to have to deal with this "not working out", and the sooner we do so, the better. Fantastic dreaming about how all these facts of life are no longer applicable to the world will not have the slightest effect on things.
It will be interesting to watch all the bright lights of today try to come to terms with these things, but I fear they never will. It'll be someone else that has to deal with it all.
Always the housework. And yet the man works longer hours, commutes farther, takes care of the lawn and cars and bills and taxes and fixing everything. Studies show that women in fact have more leisure time than their husbands. huh
Always the housework. And yet the man works longer hours, commutes farther, takes care of the lawn and cars and bills and taxes and fixing everything. Studies show that women in fact have more leisure time than their husbands. huh
This morning driving my teenager to school we talked about how her father has had the same job for 23 years and how “omg I never ever want that life” and I remarked “I see where you are coming from, but please consider that from the perspective that you have a father who cherishes and prioritizes you such that he’s gone to the same office every day for a quarter century in order to see that you are safe, healthy and happy. You are lucky to have such a father, and he is lucky to have someone whose love and promise is worth that sacrifice.”
You taught your daughter a wonderful lesson. She's lucky to have a mother like you.
This morning driving my teenager to school we talked about how her father has had the same job for 23 years and how “omg I never ever want that life” and I remarked “I see where you are coming from, but please consider that from the perspective that you have a father who cherishes and prioritizes you such that he’s gone to the same office every day for a quarter century in order to see that you are safe, healthy and happy. You are lucky to have such a father, and he is lucky to have someone whose love and promise is worth that sacrifice.”
You taught your daughter a wonderful lesson. She's lucky to have a mother like you.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा