- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 12th Grade Girls Are Far Less Likely Than Boys To Say They Want To Get Married Someday
Posted on 1/11/26 at 6:57 pm to 4cubbies
Posted on 1/11/26 at 6:57 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
After talking about my situation with several female friends, it appears this is a common experience for a number of wives.
How big is this completely anecdotal data set again?
0
Posted on 1/11/26 at 6:59 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
It’s definitely more comfortable to do that than consider my claims about husbands in many heterosexual marriages are valid.
Just like it's more comfortable to erect constant strawmen than it is to acknowledge the data that shows that married women are happier being married than not, despite your claim, and also to ignore that the obvious solution is to even up the chores rather than abandon marriage.
This post was edited on 1/11/26 at 7:00 pm
Posted on 1/11/26 at 7:00 pm to David_DJS
quote:
You mentioned your husband "opting out" of significant moments in your life. Nobody knows what you're talking about. If it's something like, "husband, I have breast cancer" then you're simply not believable.
The implication here is that I’m full of shite. Why do you need to know the details to accept my own assessment of my own life? I am in front of a hostile audience here. I don’t need to poll the poliboard to know my husband messed up in some profound ways. Even he can admit that much, which means it’s now my job to get over it… the onus is always on women.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 7:09 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
The implication here is that I’m full of shite.
No one knows what you mean by “opting out”.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 7:10 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
The implication here is that I’m full of shite. Why do you need to know the details to accept my own assessment of my own life?
Because you're not commenting on your own life. You're using a personal anecdote as proof that "men don't value women, and never have".
And I don't need to know the details of your life. Make the argument more broadly, but be specific - what kind of thing is it that you believe husbands routinely "opt out on" that's proof men don't value women?
quote:
Even he can admit that much, which means it’s now my job to get over it… the onus is always on women.
Because women never mess up, and men never need to get over it?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 5:38 am to 4cubbies
quote:So the fact there are OT threads about attractive women equates to devaluing women? Do you hear yourself?
Or should I go to the OT and look for the latest babe thread?
Your arguments are all about framing.
Male stereotypes are bad. Female stereotypes are not.
Masculinity is deemed "toxic." Feminine toxicity is deemed nonexistent.
Male interests/focus are undesirable. Female interests/focus are desirable.
Framing is fundamental to critical theory.
---
Here are the unframed facts:
Across human history (and human evolution), women benefited from choosing partners with resource-acquiring ability, while men benefited from choosing partners with youth or fertility cues. It is what it is.
Accordingly, men are indeed drawn to physically attractive women. You argue that equals "objectification" or "devaluation". Here's a clue Cubs: the women in the OT threads were not forced into posing for those pictures. They were not threatened at gunpoint to dress in an alluring way. They know what they are doing, and they are doing it for a reason.
They do those things because men value them. In fact, in contrast to your unvalued premise, there's a strong argument to be made that men generally overvalue attractive women. One might counter it isn't fair for an attractive woman to be overvalued. But that raises two points. (1) How can a woman, albeit an attractive woman, be overvalued and yet be unvalued simultaneously. (2) One rarely hears an overvalued woman complaining about being overvalued. Instead, remonstrances relative to the value of "all women" arise from agenda-driven voices or bitter categorical antitheticals.
On the other hand, instead of donning lipstick and lingerie for OT thread pics, men are geared to present themselves as financially/professionally successful. Why? Because women are stereotypically drawn to men with means or money. Somehow, that is not considered objectification though. You think it's fair for a 'Gomer Pyle' who's the nicest, most loyal guy in the world, to be deemed unattractive because he'll never be a financial provider? He'd be the perfect stay at home dad to compliment a woman who wanted to bust her arse in a professional career ... but ... no dice, Gomer.
Let me guess ... "Oh no! That's different!"
Granted, the above are initial attracting cues, and not the glue binding long-term relationships. But they are also the very disturbing basis of your "unvalued" contentions.
quote:You keep returning to skewed studies. It's almost like you don't care they are skewed. You don't care they are misleading by design, because they produce a narrative aligning with your belief.
Husbands in so-called egalitarian marriages, where they earn the same as their wives, spend about 3.5 more hours per week on leisure activities than their wives. Meanwhile, the women in those marriages spend a combined 4.5 more hours on caregiving and housework than their husbands.
But I'll break this down one more time for you.
You are quoting a 2023 "study" by Pew Research.
The core data for the time-use analysis in Pew's work came from the American Time Use Survey (ATUS). ATUS includes several categories including one called “household activities,” which covers "chores" like lawn and garden care, pet care, vehicle maintenance, and home maintenance or repair, time spent on other domestic projects or activities.
Pew had ALL that ATUS categorical information at its disposal, but chose not to use it. Instead, Pew specifically, deliberately excluded select categories.
E.g., Pew had access to time spent on yardwork, home repair, vehicle maintenance, household management, purchasing services, financial tasks. Yet, those were specifically eliminated from the "study." Why? Why would something like coaching a child's team be couched under "leisure time" for the husband rather than childcare? Why would a day of house painting in the hot sun not be counted as a domestic chore, but a subsequent long shower and relaxing with a beer watching an evening game on TV be considered as leisure?
Does that, in anyway, seem like a legitimate way to fully assess domestic contributions?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 6:26 am to NC_Tigah
Cubs using extremely flawed stats?! Of course
Posted on 1/12/26 at 10:30 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
So the fact there are OT threads about attractive women equates to devaluing women? Do you hear yourself?
Those threads objectify women. Posting pictures of women wearing hardly any clothes and drooling over their bodies is objectification.
I can't believe you're suggesting it's anything other than that.
quote:
Masculinity is deemed "toxic." Feminine toxicity is deemed nonexistent.
All we hear about is how awful women are here. Is that not framing women in general as toxic?
What part of masculinity do you think is toxic? Or what does the messaging about toxic masculinity say is toxic? Just saying "masculinity is toxic" doesn't mean anything when people don't actually hear this message outside of men victimizing themselves.
quote:
the women in the OT threads were not forced into posing for those pictures. They were not threatened at gunpoint to dress in an alluring way. They know what they are doing, and they are doing it for a reason.
Absolutely. It's the same reason I wear makeup and dress in certain ways. Women know their beauty is their most valuable asset in society and we would be remiss not to capitalize on that. A woman can knowingly participate in a system and still be frustrated by how narrowly she is valued within it.
quote:It's being valued only for what she looks like. That's the problem.
(1) How can a woman, albeit an attractive woman, be overvalued and yet be unvalued simultaneously.
Being overvalued for a single trait is still a form of devaluation of the whole person. Treating women as interchangeable bodies with an expiration date is not healthy. Overvalued as an object is not the same as valued as a person.
quote:Valid. Yep, men are socially rewarded for signaling provision, status, and competence. And no, that is not morally superior or less restrictive. It's just a different box. Men who do not fit that box absolutely pay a price for it, including the hypothetical Gomer Pyle you mention. These norms harm both sexes in different ways
men are geared to present themselves as financially/professionally successful. Why? Because women are stereotypically drawn to men with means or money. Somehow, that is not considered objectification though.
Just because patterns are old or common, that doesn't make them immune from critique. We are not cave dwellers negotiating survival with spears. We are adults building marriages, workplaces, and societies.
quote:I posted what the poster responded to without even addressing its content.
You keep returning to skewed studies. It's almost like you don't care they are skewed. You don't care they are misleading by design, because they produce a narrative aligning with your belief.
quote:Is this a serious question? Coaching is a responsibility and an obligation. It's also voluntary. That's like me saying that helping with my daughter's Girl Scout troop is childcare. Or volunteering to teach catechism classes is childcare.
Why would something like coaching a child's team be couched under "leisure time" for the husband rather than childcare?
quote:
Why would a day of house painting in the hot sun not be counted as a domestic chore, but a subsequent long shower and relaxing with a beer watching an evening game on TV be considered as leisure?
I agree that painting a house is a chore. I also agree that watching TV is leisure.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 10:34 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
ust like it's more comfortable to erect constant strawmen than it is to acknowledge the data that shows that married women are happier being married than not,
There is a lot of conflicting data about this out there.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:50 am to 4cubbies
quote:
I don’t consider “feminism” to be a reasonable explanation or culprit for men not valuing women.
We probably need to be a little more specific. The act of "Devaluing" while inaccurate, I've already addressed.
The state of marriage itself is due to feminism and culture. That's a bigger topic than this value line of thinking.
quote:
Imo, men have never valued women. It’s possible that women haven’t valued men either but that’s not what the discussion is really about.
Yeesh. That's a big statement to make. And it's quite wrong. I'd ask what do you mean as "value?"
quote:
Right. I don’t really buy into that on a personal or familial level. Money isn’t everything. Stuff isn’t everything.
Right but everything you are saying is boiling down to who does more chores, who makes more money and who spend more time in leisure - and how either the individual parties or culture is "valuing" those things.
Marriage is a lot more than that, but this is all the argument is.
quote:
which they are able to do because their wives are taking care of the kids and home.
So men potentially are working more hours at work, while women are spending more time on chores at home. And this is a problem?
quote:
It surprises me that the assumption is men are doing these big tasks.
I mean, men are going to do the manual and any man that doesn't needs to re-evaluate. Of course that doesn't mean they do it all, but they are more than likely doing the large share of it.
quote:
Women aren’t valued.
Why?
Look, you're right for a subset of marriages, but to apply this to culture and marriages at large, just not really valuable to do that.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:51 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
But I'll break this down one more time for you.
You are quoting a 2023 "study" by Pew Research.
The core data for the time-use analysis in Pew's work came from the American Time Use Survey (ATUS). ATUS includes several categories including one called “household activities,” which covers "chores" like lawn and garden care, pet care, vehicle maintenance, and home maintenance or repair, time spent on other domestic projects or activities.
Pew had ALL that ATUS categorical information at its disposal, but chose not to use it. Instead, Pew specifically, deliberately excluded select categories.
E.g., Pew had access to time spent on yardwork, home repair, vehicle maintenance, household management, purchasing services, financial tasks. Yet, those were specifically eliminated from the "study." Why? Why would something like coaching a child's team be couched under "leisure time" for the husband rather than childcare? Why would a day of house painting in the hot sun not be counted as a domestic chore, but a subsequent long shower and relaxing with a beer watching an evening game on TV be considered as leisure?
Thanks for doing this research. I assumed as much, but this confirms it.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 12:20 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
There is a lot of conflicting data about this out there.
I haven't seen any conflicting data.
If you know of some that contradicts the trend I identified, post it.
I'd like to see it. See what the methodology is. For sure I'd like to see what the age range is.
The problem is that we live in an age in which people are routinely convinced of stuff that simply isn't true.
The Gender Wage gap as a function of employers discriminating against women instead of women's voluntary choices resulting in them not getting paid as much is a great example off the top of my head.
We live in the most gender equal, non-racist, non-homophobic, comfortable, civil rights protected society with the highest standard of living for the most people (and it isn't even close) that has ever existed on this planet unless you believe in Atlantis and/or you count the Garden of Eden.
But people are routinely convinced that they should be angry, disillusioned, suspicious, protesting, boycotting, that they are oppressed, taken advantage of, downtrodden, discriminated against, that the system is broken and needs to be burned down and all conventions abandoned. Employer-employee, man-woman in marriage, citizen-government, etc., etc.
This isn't just women, lest you think I'm saying that. It's men too. And it's not just Democrats (not anymore). It's Republicans too.
We literally ignore the reality around us so as to cling to our disaffection. That's the society we live in.
Now, I'm not saying what we have is perfect and that there is no room for improvement. I'm saying that we've been socialized to grossly over react and that we have no perspective whatsoever. I think technology has caused us to outkick our psychological coverage. So are there studies with some women crying about marriage? I can certainly believe it. They aren't the only ones who have been taught to see things through a vastly distorted lens and to over react to minor problems.
Example, and one I have brought up six times now and you will not touch it:
Instead of abandoning marriage, if so many women are so upset about doing more chores at home, why do women not simply resolve that (relatively minor, in the context of history) inequality rather than abandon marriage?
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
Instead you want to talk about how 60 years ago there were no anti-rape laws in states and women couldn't have a credit card.
That was 55-60 years ago. TODAY (a.k.a. the time we're actually living in) the pendulum has swung back the other way. There is legally nothing men can do that women can't, the educational system has been modified for women, the church has been in large part feminized, every HR department in the country gives preferential treatment to women, women go to college more often than men, have more advanced degrees than men, own more homes than men, and the courts STILL favor women in divorce settlements and child custody. Women are STILL exempt from selective service.
I'm not even going to argue that women do more household chores. I've granted it from the beginning (whether the research is accurate on it or not, I really don't care). Let's just grant it as being true. The fact that men don't do as many chores as women probably IS a holdover from 60 years ago and before. I'm sure it is. Just like the fact that men work longer hours, pretty much all the dangerous jobs, are required to register for SS when women aren't, and aren't allowed to hit women while women are usually not held to the same standard of violence are holdovers from the same time period (in fact, they are logical extensions of obvious biological differences, but we aren't allowed to point that out these day).
But again, women still retained their holdover bennies too, and got a lot of new ones piled on top.
So why not just fix that one relatively minor problem? I know why I think.
What's your theory?
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 12:26 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
the onus is always on women.
Nope.
The onus is always on the one making the claims/doing the complaining. It's got to be your responsibility to confront the behavior you don't like.
If your husband is hurting you emotionally and not puling his weight in the household, you need to confront him about it. If he won't listen, you need to go talk to your priest. That's what's supposed to happen.
Again, this sound suspiciously like the female trope of, "Well if I have to tell him that something's hurtful he's not even paying enough attention for me to believe he cares. He ought to just know."
It doesn't work that way.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 12:31 pm to 4cubbies
quote:Objectify is a floating feminist signifier. It has derisive misandric connotations but limited actual meaning. Men appreciate feminine beauty. They are naturally attracted to it. Women are keenly aware, and they absolutely play the game. Finding offense in that interface is as silly as dudes being offended by women throwing themselves at rich men. Laugh at the foolishness. Have fun with people being people, but don't be offended by it.
Those threads objectify women
quote:Masculinity in and of itself? No part. It's an element of feminist pedagogy simply not in my lexicon.
What part of masculinity do you think is toxic?
quote:No. It's being valued for what she looks like.
How can a woman, albeit an attractive woman, be overvalued and yet be unvalued simultaneously.
---
It's being valued only for what she looks like.
That value might get her attention of more men, or more "desirable" men, but if there is no value beyond that, she's going to be a lonely and ultimately unattractive person. In the same way a woman might be initially attracted to a wealthy male scion, only to find him wholly unattractive as a person. Were it not for the initial allure, her "objectification" of his wealth to use your term, she'd have never given him the first time of day.
quote:No. It is service in time for your child's benefit. It is also time creation for the spouse not coaching. The larger point being, it was not just a skewed misleading "study," it was a deliberately skewed misleading "study."
Is this a serious question? Coaching is a responsibility and an obligation.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 12:32 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
The state of marriage itself is due to feminism and culture. That's a bigger topic than this value line of thinking.
What exactly do you mean when you say "the state of marriage is due to feminism..."? This seems like such a copout.
quote:I did back it up with evidence in a post to NC. Valued = respected as whole people with dignity and agency.
Yeesh. That's a big statement to make. And it's quite wrong. I'd ask what do you mean as "value?"
quote:I agree that marriage is more than housework and keeping kids alive. What other metrics could be used to measure or demonstrate effort and satisfaction/frustration?
Right but everything you are saying is boiling down to who does more chores, who makes more money and who spend more time in leisure - and how either the individual parties or culture is "valuing" those things.
Marriage is a lot more than that, but this is all the argument is.
quote:
So men potentially are working more hours at work, while women are spending more time on chores at home. And this is a problem?
Some men are working more hours at work. A quick google search said more than a quarter (28%) of men work overtime everyday compared to 13% of women. I know this isn't a comprehensive picture, but if tis reflective of larger trends - this isn't even a third of men/husbands.
quote:
but to apply this to culture and marriages at large, just not really valuable to do that.
Can you provide evidence of women being valued by society in tangible ways?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 12:33 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
wackatimesthree
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 12:43 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
We live in the most gender equal, non-racist, non-homophobic, comfortable, civil rights protected society with the highest standard of living for the most people (and it isn't even close) that has ever existed on this planet unless you believe in Atlantis and/or you count the Garden of Eden.
But people are routinely convinced that they should be angry, disillusioned, suspicious, protesting, boycotting, that they are oppressed, taken advantage of, downtrodden, discriminated against, that the system is broken and needs to be burned down and all conventions abandoned.
100%
Victimhood has become a virtue, and the most enthusiastic virtue-signalers are also the biggest victims.
quote:
Again, this sound suspiciously like the female trope of, "Well if I have to tell him that something's hurtful he's not even paying enough attention for me to believe he cares. He ought to just know."
Which is why cubbies has not explained what she meant, even in "for women/wives in general" terms, when she argued husbands routinely opt out really big shite.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 12:47 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Can you provide evidence of women being valued by society in tangible ways?
WIC assistance.
Priority for subsidized housing.
Preferential treatment for scholarships and hiring.
Lower physical fitness standards for jobs as first responders, military, etc.
More women's scholarships sports in universities than men's.
Lighter criminal sentences and lower bails for the same crimes committed.
Are given custody of their kids by default in family court unless there is overwhelming evidence why they shouldn't get at least partial custody, where as men often have to prove they're fit parents just to get partial custody. Women have to be proved they're NOT fit parents just to lose joint custody, let alone lose partial custody.
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 12:51 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:03 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I know this won’t be well-received but our social, economic, and institutional systems are organized around male comfort, credibility, and success.
Eh, I would say that men, as a whole, work harder jobs than women by orders of magnitude. Women aren't as "valued" in economic systems because, by and large, we don't participate in a fraction of the work force.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:07 pm to 4cubbies
How many funko pops does your husband own?
Page 13 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News