re: 12th Grade Girls Are Far Less Likely Than Boys To Say They Want To Get Married Someday

quote:

---

such claims are based on flawed Critical Feminist Pedagogy. Flawed,

---

Can you cite the particular “Critical Feminist Pedagogy” you are referring to? I’m not familiar with it. I have used my own brain to synthesize my own experiences and the experiences of many couples in my orbit to draw my own conclusions.

quote:

---

then seeks historical artifact to support what is inevitably an oppressor premise focused on the target.

---

I find it interesting that you’re attempting to frame my argument this way when I haven’t used the word “oppressive” in this thread.

quote:

---

You've cited hardships of work-life balance, intimating large differences for women in the workforce now vs 1993. In 1993, 45% of the US workforce was female. Today that number is 47%.

---

I’ve done no such thing. I didn’t cite work–life balance, nor did I claim women’s workforce participation has dramatically changed since 1993.

Pointing out that women made up about half the workforce then and now doesn’t actually explain anything. It tells us nothing about how labor is distributed outside the paid workplace, which is where the real shift and the real strain are.

Women still do the majority of unpaid labor after their paid workday ends. They do most of the housework, most of the caregiving, most of the emotional labor, and they carry the mental load of managing households and families. That has been well documented for decades. When young women look at marriage today, they’re not responding irrationally. They’re responding to what they see: dual-earner households where women are still expected to do everything, and then get blamed when they say they’re exhausted or reluctant to have more babies.

Lower marital expectations are a rational response to an institution that often demands disproportionate labor from women while offering diminishing returns and limited support. Ignoring that reality and reducing the discussion to a two-point change in workforce participation misses the point entirely.

quote:

---

First of all,

---

Not starting off with “First of all…”

We’re saying the same thing anyway. We agree.

quote:

---

I have used my own brain to synthesize my own experiences and the experiences of many couples in my orbit to draw my own conclusions.

---

Do all of yall get together and whine about your husbands because they might sleep an extra hour or something? You seem full of regret.

quote:

---

When young women look at marriage today, they’re not responding irrationally. They’re responding to what they see: dual-earner households where women are still expected to do everything, and then get blamed when they say they’re exhausted or reluctant to have more babies.

---

Got a link?

I don't think that's what's influencing high school girls at all.

Why is it that modern women are willing to take control of all of these situations—initiating divorces, starting businesses, outpacing men in going to college, outpacing men (by an even higher margin) in earning advanced degrees, setting a record high number of female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies in 2025, etc., etc., but they can't seem to negotiate who takes out the trash at home?

Tell me that. Why can all these Girl Bosses negotiate mergers and corporate takeovers and compete with men in the workplace, but they can't negotiate household chores? That doesn't make any sense.

Why does it make sense to piss on marriage altogether rather than solve what should be a relatively simple and easy problem to solve?

Especially when we know from the data that marriage is better for women financially, emotionally, and physically? That's worth having an argument about who scrubs the bathtub, isn't it?

This will be the third or fourth time I've asked you some version of this question. Just sayin'.

quote:

---

I have used my own brain to synthesize my own experiences and the experiences of many couples in my orbit to draw my own conclusions.

---

That's the problem. There's research on this, and you don't pay any attention to it. Your argument is 100% anecdotal.

Obviously, because it shows the opposite of your preconceived, assumed narrative.

quote:

---

That's the problem. There's research on this, and you don't pay any attention to it. Your argument is 100% anecdotal.

Obviously, because it shows the opposite of your preconceived, assumed narrative.

---

Specifically how does this vague “research” You’re referencing contradict my claims? My claims are reinforced by research. I’ve linked research that supports my claims in this thread.

quote:

---

Specifically how does this vague “research” You’re referencing contradict my claims? My claims are reinforced by research. I’ve linked research that supports my claims in this thread.

---

If its liberal research, one must have some serious doubts about the legitimacy of any of it.

quote:

---

I find it interesting that you’re attempting to frame my argument this way when I haven’t used the word “oppressive” in this thread.

---

You said: "Men get a pretty caretaker who will have sex with them. Women get another human to take care of and clean up after while also working outside of the home and doing the lion's share of childrearing." If you don't relate to your own descriptor as oppressive, I don't know what to tell you

quote:

---

I didn’t cite work–life balance

---

"Women get another human to take care of and clean up after while also working outside of the home and doing the lion's share of childrearing," is your direct lament addressing disparate male-female work-life balance.

quote:

---

Pointing out that women made up about half the workforce then and now doesn’t actually explain anything. It tells us nothing about how labor is distributed outside the paid workplace, which is where the real shift and the real strain are.

---

You were asking about critical theory as related to feminism.

Here is an example:

I handed you information which undercuts assertions that work-life changes over the past three decades account for the OP survey stats. The facts are that women's actual work-life environment today is little different than it was 30yrs ago. Women were equally likely to be balancing workforce and homemaking duties 30 yrs ago as demonstrated by WFPR stats. Further, the annual divorce rate is now roughly half what it was then, which would intimate increased satisfaction in present partnerships, as opposed to your claims to the contrary. When confronted with nonconcordant facts or disconfirming evidence, instead of modifying the hypothesis, a critical theorist simply ignores contradicting facts, and casts aside such evidence.

I'd suggest that while you may be "using your own brain to synthesize your own experiences and the experiences of many couples in your orbit to draw your own conclusions," you are doing it (consciously or subconsciously) with CT methodology identical to that of pedagogy saturating your academic experiences. CT (aka pseudoscientific methodology) is so accepted, so commonplace, so everpresent in today's academic environments that its employment by educational progeny is scarcely surprising, even amongst folks like yourself who may be trying to rationally work through factsets. In fact, its employment would be expected.

I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention "my own experiences and the experiences of many couples in my orbit" compared with yours are disjoint sets in a Venn diagram.

quote:

---

Have you watched the economy the past 4 years? People cant afford to have kids. shite, I know people who can't even afford to have a fricking pet dog.

---

You think high schoolers are concerned with the affordability of kids?

quote:

---

paint it as a personal grievance

---

I did that? Naw. You did that.

quote:

---

I have used my own brain to synthesize my own experiences and the experiences of many couples in my orbit to draw my own conclusions.

---

quote:

---

which confirms this is a broad issue that affects marital satisfaction across the country.

---

Are you so dumb that you don't understand the distinction here, or are you hoping that everyone else is? In other words, are you stupid, or dishonest? It has to be one or the other.

"Women do more chores" is not in dispute. That was not your original claim. It was offered to substantiate your original claim, which it does a poor job of, and I've explained why (I think) five times now, and I've asked you (I think) five times about why women don't simply decide to correct that one problem rather than abandon marriage altogether, which is cutting off their noses to spite their faces. You will not address that (and we both know why).

Your original claim is that marriage is a bad deal for women, and no wonder they are abandoning it, because they know the score.

"Women do more chores" does not equal "marriage is bad for women," which is essentially what your claim is.

"No wonder they abandoned it, it's a bad deal for them."

Right? Correct me if I'm wrong about your claim there.

Well, as has been pointed out numerous times, high school children do NOT know the score. About anything. So that's out, at least in the context of this specific thread and story. High school children know only what they have been taught to parrot because they have insufficient life experience to formulate informed opinions on their own experience, especially about something like marriage.

And the research shows that—even though women do more chores—marriage is still a great deal for them. Married women live longer, are healthier, report higher levels of happiness, and have more wealth than unmarried women.

quote:

---

I’ve linked research that shows women married to men do more housework than single moms.

---

Yep. Never disputed that. The problem is your assumption that that fact means that marriage is a bad deal for women. The two do not necessarily follow, and the research debunks the assumption. Sorry. Science beats feminist theory. I know you really, really, really wish that those two things necessarily followed, but the research says they don't.

quote:

---

Women married to men get to essentially raise them.

---

None of the research you linked to said anything like that. None of it said that women raise men. So I suppose that's your own bitter, shrewish characterization of the situation, right?

quote:

---

What a prize.

---

Health, wealth, happiness, and longevity. There aren't many prizes in life beyond those. There are a few...but not many.

Like I said before, men do not think that way. When we benefit from a situation, we don't get so childishly angry and jealous that someone else benefits more that we blow up the whole thing. If it bothers us that much, we appeal for more equity in the situation. But absent an equivalent or better alternative—which the research clearly shows that women remaining single is a worse alternative—we won't abandon the situation that is benefitting us even if it's not benefitting us equally.

Because that's just stupid and childish.

My claim is that women are acting against their own interests because they have been have been indoctrinated by feminism. Which has become so embedded in society that it is assumed and motivates behavior that is obviously contrary to self-benefit . Much like the idea that "diversity is our strength," when it very obviously is no such thing. It's a fulcrum of constant conflict and stress.

Your claim is that women act against their own interests because y'all are childish and jealous and petty and would rather cut off your nose to spite your face than you would let men "get away with" you doing more chores than they do.

It's no good insisting that doing more chores outweighs greater health, wealth, longevity and happiness. There's no rational way to argue that claim.

There's also no rational way to argue that the obvious solution to the chore inequality isn't to negotiate a more equitable division of labor in the household rather than abandon marriage.

But one of those solutions is consistent with feminism, which teaches women to despise men and resist cooperation with them, and the other isn't.

And you're as indoctrinated as the next gal, so you can only see the one option as making sense. You are the best example I have that proves my theory. You won't even engage the possibility of simply negotiating a more equitable division of labor. Won't even address it, no matter how many times I ask about it. Why?

Feminism.

quote:

---

Husbands prefer to let women work harder than them without appreciating or valuing their wives or women in general.

---

Any partner in any relationship is prone to underfunction if the other partner is willing to overfunction. That's true at work, on a sports team, pretty much in any relationship.

Any therapist will tell you that both partners have created that dynamic and both have to take responsibility in a dynamic like that to correct it. One has to be willing to step up his or her game to function higher, but the other partner has to be willing to set boundaries and let partner A know when he or she is falling behind.

This is starting to sound a lot like the classic female trope of being angry that she has to ask for something. That if her partner "really loved her," he would just know what she wanted/needed, and the fact that she has to tell him makes her even angrier than the original problem.

Because again, otherwise your narrative makes no sense. If the husband is underfunctioning, set boundaries. If he won't step up after repeated requests, THEN you consider abandoning the situation, if it's so bad that it outweighs all of the benefits (which it almost certainly won't).

But instead of institutionally hammering the message that men are bad for women and women need to avoid men and marriage, why not institutionally hammer the message that women and men need to work together equitably in marriage? Why is that not the obvious solution?

Because that's not feminism. Feminism doesn't want men and women to get along.

quote:

---

And you want call women spiteful for that.

---

Again, which is it? Stupid, or dishonest? It has to be one or the other.

I called women spiteful for forgoing an opportunity to be happier, healthier, live longer, and have more wealth because they can't stand it that they do more chores than men.

Not for men underfunctionig.

But you knew that. Because you're not really stupid, are you?