Reform Feminism!

[Alceste]

Y' know, this is honestly the first I've ever heard of this "Red Pill" pickup artist sub-culture thing against women. I've heard the "Red Pill" being used as a metaphor for someone who is "asleep" to something (usually political, economic etc) but never something to do with Feminism/Women.

Strange. But hey, some people are just morons...

True, but that's specifically what the artist is referring to.

A quick editorial cartoon about the intersection of self-pity, entitlement, rape, territoriality, misogyny and fear of women. You see it all over the place online in the form of Men's Rights Activists (of whom there are a few reasonable non-misogynists), Men Going Their Own Way, Pick Up Artists, and dudes touting the "Red Pill", because The Matrix is a good movie. Look any of these up if you have the stomach for it. These are extreme examples, but watered-down forms of these ideas are everywhere.

In lurking their blogs and youtube channels for a while, I've noticed that beyond the standard patriarchal chauvinism there is this deep fear of women - what they will do to me, how they will reject me, how they will use me, how they are changing society in a way that does not favor me, how they are making men into something I don't like, how they are making themselves into something I don't like, that they won't give me what I want, and that they won't give me what I think is rightfully mine. This goes beyond fear of feminism- this is fear of women at its purest. And that, to quote a puppet, leads to anger and hate. It's sad.

I am a feminist. I think there's enough ice cream to go around, but it does mean those of us with 3 scoops might have to give one or two up. Also, The Matrix is a fun movie but probably not anything you should be basing a philosophy on.

https://vimeo.com/64941331

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well, you know, I feel pretty sorry for ANYBODY, male or female who has no meaningful work to do besides cleaning the house and looking after children. I don't think men not having jobs outside the home - thus miring themselves in the pointless, existential ennui women fought for centuries to escape - is any kind of "progress" I'd be interested in pursuing.

Instead, I'd prefer to see affordable, accessible daycare, located conveniently near the places parents actually work. Preferably in the same building.

In addition to housework being an unfulfilling occupation for most people, it's also not economically feasible for a modern family to survive and thrive on one income.

If stay-at-home dads are feeling crappy about not having a career, it's not so different from how stay-at-home moms feel about it. Maybe it's just an unnatural situation. We all need meaningful work to do in order to be fulfilled.

I apologize for not making it clear. The Issue isn't that men can't simply sit at home to raise children without a career without being mocked but rather the issue that it is socially unacceptable for men to be the one to stay at home if situations arise where one of the two must quit work and stay at home.

Not that the eventual goal is to be able to get more men to be stay at home dads but rather the social stigma that the "man" has to be the bread winner. Even my wife (who is more strongly associated with feminism and feminist ideology than myself) lived with me for about 3 years with no job. She saw nothing wrong with it. I saw nothing wrong with it. In an argument it was brought up one time (something to do with chore responsibilities or something) and I asked her if it would be okay or acceptable for me to live off of her income without me working at all. She replied "no" and I asked her why. She didn't really have an answer and it was a moment of revelation between the two of us that such patriarichal notions still remained drilled so deeply within us.

Though just to say as a soon-to-be parent I don't think that sending your children to daycare is really just a good thing to do if a person can stay at home. Not saying that either parent should be giving up their career or anything but there is no shame with stay at home mothers or fathers. And that is a real issue with men and women that is at the end a feminist issue. Why are men not allowed to be care givers? When worded from that perspective it often puts feminists on the defenisive (usually because of overly agressive MRA members opening with something similar) so instead I shall word it differently. "Why can't men be the ones to stay at home to take care of the children while women continue with their careers?"

This is the exact same issue but with a different wording to feign a women's perspective rather than a male perspective. This is why I say "men's issues" and "women's issues" are often the same issue but from different perspectives and often with the same goal. Not always though as there are difinitively women issues that have no bearing on men's issues. I'm sure there may or may not be male issues of similar calibur but not that I can think of and the overall discussion should be based upon women as they do not partake of the "lion's share".

 

[DallasApple]

[youtube]rQyeskd8CgA[/youtube]
Willie Nelson - Crazy - High Quality Audio - YouTube

 

[Alceste]

I apologize for not making it clear. The Issue isn't that men can't simply sit at home to raise children without a career without being mocked but rather the issue that it is socially unacceptable for men to be the one to stay at home if situations arise where one of the two must quit work and stay at home.

Not that the eventual goal is to be able to get more men to be stay at home dads but rather the social stigma that the "man" has to be the bread winner. Even my wife (who is more strongly associated with feminism and feminist ideology than myself) lived with me for about 3 years with no job. She saw nothing wrong with it. I saw nothing wrong with it. In an argument it was brought up one time (something to do with chore responsibilities or something) and I asked her if it would be okay or acceptable for me to live off of her income without me working at all. She replied "no" and I asked her why. She didn't really have an answer and it was a moment of revelation between the two of us that such patriarichal notions still remained drilled so deeply within us.

Though just to say as a soon-to-be parent I don't think that sending your children to daycare is really just a good thing to do if a person can stay at home. Not saying that either parent should be giving up their career or anything but there is no shame with stay at home mothers or fathers. And that is a real issue with men and women that is at the end a feminist issue. Why are men not allowed to be care givers? When worded from that perspective it often puts feminists on the defenisive (usually because of overly agressive MRA members opening with something similar) so instead I shall word it differently. "Why can't men be the ones to stay at home to take care of the children while women continue with their careers?"

This is the exact same issue but with a different wording to feign a women's perspective rather than a male perspective. This is why I say "men's issues" and "women's issues" are often the same issue but from different perspectives and often with the same goal. Not always though as there are difinitively women issues that have no bearing on men's issues. I'm sure there may or may not be male issues of similar calibur but not that I can think of and the overall discussion should be based upon women as they do not partake of the "lion's share".

They can. I can't see why you'd think such questions would put me on the defensive. I've been the breadwinner in my marriage for a few years now, and we don't even have kids.

On the other hand, my husband is happier and more fulfilled when he is working outside the home and earning his own money. He says so himself, and he's currently looking for work.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

They can. I can't see why you'd think such questions would put me on the defensive. I've been the breadwinner in my marriage for a few years now, and we don't even have kids.

On the other hand, my husband is happier and more fulfilled when he is working outside the home and earning his own money. He says so himself, and he's currently looking for work.

I didn't say you specifically. You tend to be more laid back than most individuals (feminst or not). Though there are femnists that do get defensive. Same as MRA and others. You learn over time the keywords that have higher chances of causing defensive manuvering.

And I am proud of your husband for being as modern as he is to accept you as the breadwinner. There is nothing wrong with it unless its looked at from a partriarichal point of view. But socially does your husband recieve any backlash for being the secondary income next to his more sucessful wife?

I know at least in America (I know there are some cultural differences between our two countries) it still isn't the social norn or even acceptable in certain circles. Its not that the propositions themselves have any flaws but the way society views those propositions that is the problem.

 

[Alceste]

I didn't say you specifically. You tend to be more laid back than most individuals (feminst or not). Though there are femnists that do get defensive. Same as MRA and others. You learn over time the keywords that have higher chances of causing defensive manuvering.

And I am proud of your husband for being as modern as he is to accept you as the breadwinner. There is nothing wrong with it unless its looked at from a partriarichal point of view. But socially does your husband recieve any backlash for being the secondary income next to his more sucessful wife?

I know at least in America (I know there are some cultural differences between our two countries) it still isn't the social norn or even acceptable in certain circles. Its not that the propositions themselves have any flaws but the way society views those propositions that is the problem.

In this country, it's not really socially acceptable for ANYBODY - male or female - to be without a job or career, or at least general aspirations in that direction.

That said, my husband doesn't really suffer any social repercussions for not making money because he's working at home. He makes games, so he is pursuing a meaningful interest / occupation and an aspiration to be successful in his career.

The only person who gives him flak is my grandmother, who basically doesn't think a man is doing anything useful unless he's building something. And by that I mean a house or a bridge, not a video game.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

If you could do two things to improve the feminist movement, what would those things be?

1) Education
2) Education
3) Education

(I threw in a third suggestion because I wanted to)

There have always been a lot of assumptions about feminism floating around, and with cyberspace as expansive as it is, those assumptions get more audiences. But feminism has grown to include women of color, women in third world countries, GLBTQs, women in various socio-economic classes...so the assumptions about what feminism is and what it isn't becomes ever more silly as the years pass. The best remedy is to continue to educate the masses, to correct misunderstandings, to bring to light issues that have been glossed over and ignored that increase the plight of women and girls around the world.

Think feminism doesn't need to educate anybody? Look around at misconceptions about feminism even here at RF.

Oh, and about men's issues and that men should also take care of the kids and the home? I remember my mother being actively involved in Second Wave insisting that men should be more involved, and that it's what makes men more connected as fathers. It also becomes a shared responsibility for the home, rather than relying completely on archaic gender roles to determine division of labor.

But these misconceptions about what feminism has been fighting for - including issues that attack our fellow man in a patriarchal system - need to be brought to light so that people don't continue to think that feminism has not been addressing men's issues enough. And that can be done through better education and enlightening the public.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

In this country, it's not really socially acceptable for ANYBODY - male or female - to be without a job or career, or at least general aspirations in that direction.

That said, my husband doesn't really suffer any social repercussions for not making money because he's working at home. He makes games, so he is pursuing a meaningful interest / occupation and an aspiration to be successful in his career.

The only person who gives him flak is my grandmother, who basically doesn't think a man is doing anything useful unless he's building something. And by that I mean a house or a bridge, not a video game.

Well thats good.

So in Canda stay at home mom's (or dad's) are unacceptable? Even when they are young? I don't mean a career stay at home spouce but even when you ahve 1 and 2 year olds? Ironicaly in Florida we get a lot of Canadians and they haven't given me that impression yet.

But also glad to hear your husband is doing something he loves. My roomate is getting his degree in the same thing.

 

[Alceste]

Well thats good.

So in Canda stay at home mom's (or dad's) are unacceptable? Even when they are young? I don't mean a career stay at home spouce but even when you ahve 1 and 2 year olds? Ironicaly in Florida we get a lot of Canadians and they haven't given me that impression yet.

But also glad to hear your husband is doing something he loves. My roomate is getting his degree in the same thing.

Canada is a big, diverse country. I live on the West Coast. I grew up in Alberta, and I've lived in Montreal and Toronto. Gender roles are more entrenched in Alberta than pretty much anywhere else. I know a few stay at home moms here, but they often talk about how much they're looking forward to getting back to work, and they are not satisfied. They seem starved for grown-up connection, and always linger after picking their kids up from music lessons to chat. And chat. And chat.

I think what is happening is that when they can afford for someone to stay home, it's usually the woman who sacrifices her career and aspirations. Not because she WANTS to give up her career, but because she is EXPECTED to.

As I said, though, both men and women feel social stigma against not having a career or aspirations toward one. I don't see more social stigma associated with either gender on the West Coast (not in the circles I move in, at least). But I do think men are less likely to voluntarily make that sacrifice themselves. I think that may be partly because men are more likely than women to base their identity and sense of self-esteem on their job, according to a study I read about.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Canada is a big, diverse country. I live on the West Coast. I grew up in Alberta, and I've lived in Montreal and Toronto. Gender roles are more entrenched in Alberta than pretty much anywhere else. I know a few stay at home moms here, but they often talk about how much they're looking forward to getting back to work, and they are not satisfied. They seem starved for grown-up connection, and always linger after picking their kids up from music lessons to chat. And chat. And chat.

I think what is happening is that when they can afford for someone to stay home, it's usually the woman who sacrifices her career and aspirations. Not because she WANTS to give up her career, but because she is EXPECTED to.

As I said, though, both men and women feel social stigma against not having a career or aspirations toward one. I don't see more social stigma associated with either gender on the West Coast (not in the circles I move in, at least). But I do think men are less likely to voluntarily make that sacrifice themselves. I think that may be partly because men are more likely than women to base their identity and sense of self-esteem on their job, according to a study I read about.

I think it was Frued who imposed the idea that men self identified by what they have done and women self identify by what they appear to be. It was a freudian perspective paper on the examination of the Grimm's fariy tales and it was a damn good read. It showed the psychological and sociological implications for the different genders and how they were indentified and evaluated for woth within the context of the stories.

Women were identified repeatedly by their looks and appearnace. They were evaluated for worth because of their frailty, purity and more than anything, beauty. While at the same time the male characters within the grimm's fairy tales were not often even described physically and only their actions and deeds were focused on. Thus bringing in the social and psychological indentifiers for the genders to be based on different things and some of that still lingers today.

Even up untill recently it has been a running media convention that women of differing socioeconmic statures may retain a friendship but not women of drastically different attractivness levels. While the opposite is true in the media and movies for men. Men of drastically different attractiveness levels can retain a friendship while the socio economic standpoints would drive tension between those plutonic relationships.

 

[Alceste]

I think it was Frued who imposed the idea that men self identified by what they have done and women self identify by what they appear to be. It was a freudian perspective paper on the examination of the Grimm's fariy tales and it was a damn good read. It showed the psychological and sociological implications for the different genders and how they were indentified and evaluated for woth within the context of the stories.

Women were identified repeatedly by their looks and appearnace. They were evaluated for worth because of their frailty, purity and more than anything, beauty. While at the same time the male characters within the grimm's fairy tales were not often even described physically and only their actions and deeds were focused on. Thus bringing in the social and psychological indentifiers for the genders to be based on different things and some of that still lingers today.

Even up untill recently it has been a running media convention that women of differing socioeconmic statures may retain a friendship but not women of drastically different attractivness levels. While the opposite is true in the media and movies for men. Men of drastically different attractiveness levels can retain a friendship while the socio economic standpoints would drive tension between those plutonic relationships.

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yeah, that makes sense.

I will see if I can find that paper.

 

[DallasApple]

"Why can't men be the ones to stay at home to take care of the children while women continue with their careers?"

My son is the primary caregiver of his 2 children(he works part time)His wife works full time and earns 80% of their income...He told me he would rather go to work(FT).He likes making his own money and he says its more fulfilling.Unfortunately he doesn't earn enough for that to make sense because childcare cost would eat up most of what he would earn.So he works on her days off and a couple of evenings.

Similar situation with one of my neighbors.They are both massage therapists they have their own salon ..but she runs it and works there full time and he only part time the rest to the time he stays home and takes care of their 2 children .They pretty much switch off.

Right off the top of my head I can think of 2 other couples I know with similar situations.

And like Alceste said ...there aren't that many couples in the first place (not anymore) where either the man or the woman stay home FT.I'll check but I think its about 85% of couples both work .

 

[DallasApple]

I just think the idea that feminist should actively take part in solving men's issues so they wont be thought of as "man haters" is .....I don't like some sort of arm twisting tactic to get something you want .Ya know? Like if you don't do what I want I will go around lying about you .Its like if I start a cat rescue operation being called a dog hater unless I rescue them too.

And some of the "issues" I have seen i don't know..it seems like scrambling to find something ...anything where women seemingly have some sort of 'advantage" specifically over men.Like "more money is put towards research and treatment for breast cancer than for prostate cancer"...I do not see how that should be a 'feminist" issue?

Sometimes the examples do not even have a hint of any kind of 'unequal" treatment of men or any kind of "out of proportion " suffering of men.This one man recently said and again it was to "prove" feminist are really about "equality" would be acknowledge that boy's (not children boys specifically) are abused at the hands of women caregivers(including mothers)..It didn't make any sense to me why he would want to single out in reference to child abuse boys(only) being abused and only by women.



He said after it was acknowledged ( who even denied it in the first place) that he would like feminists to "raise awareness" to the fact.

So what a special campainge to raise awareness that child abuse is perpetrated by some women against some boys?Why?

It seems to me (I could be wrong) its simply to "point out" something bad some women do to males.

The responses he got he said it was "proof" feminist are not about equality is my point.It seemed to fly over his head there is nothing 'unequal" in the issue he was talking about in the 1st place.

Anyway Im with Alceste as long as girls and women ARE in fact being targeted ONLY because they are female all over the world that is where my concerns would be as far as feminism goes.Im not going to sit around wringing my hands because somewhere out there is an angry mob of men sitting around calling me a man hater because I'm not marching down the street with a sign that says women are mean to men too!While little girls (just because they are females) are having their clitorises sliced off and their labia sewed shut...while 1,000's and 1,000's of children(mostly girls by the way) and women are being sold into the sex slave industry everyday ..while women are being doused with gasoline and set on fire by their husbands and they usually get away with it...while its still not illegal to rape your wife in many countries..etc...

By the way I donated money to prostate cancer research if it matters.

 

[Riverwolf]

I just think the idea that feminist should actively take part in solving men's issues so they wont be thought of as "man haters" is .....I don't like some sort of arm twisting tactic to get something you want .Ya know? Like if you don't do what I want I will go around lying about you .Its like if I start a cat rescue operation being called a dog hater unless I rescue them too.

And some of the "issues" I have seen i don't know..it seems like scrambling to find something ...anything where women seemingly have some sort of 'advantage" specifically over men.Like "more money is put towards research and treatment for breast cancer than for prostate cancer"...I do not see how that should be a 'feminist" issue?

Sometimes the examples do not even have a hint of any kind of 'unequal" treatment of men or any kind of "out of proportion " suffering of men.This one man recently said and again it was to "prove" feminist are really about "equality" would be acknowledge that boy's (not children boys specifically) are abused at the hands of women caregivers(including mothers)..It didn't make any sense to me why he would want to single out in reference to child abuse boys(only) being abused and only by women.



He said after it was acknowledged ( who even denied it in the first place) that he would like feminists to "raise awareness" to the fact.

So what a special campainge to raise awareness that child abuse is perpetrated by some women against some boys?Why?

It seems to me (I could be wrong) its simply to "point out" something bad some women do to males.

The responses he got he said it was "proof" feminist are not about equality is my point.It seemed to fly over his head there is nothing 'unequal" in the issue he was talking about in the 1st place.

Anyway Im with Alceste as long as girls and women ARE in fact being targeted ONLY because they are female all over the world that is where my concerns would be as far as feminism goes.Im not going to sit around wringing my hands because somewhere out there is an angry mob of men sitting around calling me a man hater because I'm not marching down the street with a sign that says women are mean to men too!While little girls (just because they are females) are having their clitorises sliced off and their labia sewed shut...while 1,000's and 1,000's of children(mostly girls by the way) and women are being sold into the sex slave industry everyday ..while women are being doused with gasoline and set on fire by their husbands and they usually get away with it...while its still not illegal to rape your wife in many countries..etc...

By the way I donated money to prostate cancer research if it matters.

And if it does matter, as well, I don't really consider that a real "issue," either. Men have far fewer gender-based issues than women, and they're not anywhere near as severe.

 

[DallasApple]

The attitude that feminists don't need to even think about men's issues is what bred the MRA.

The MRA (what I have seen of it mostly) is more about anti feminism than it is about men's rights.Which has been around since the beginning.Just its easier to gather via internet and we can listen in...

I would much rather spend my time fighting for gays to be able to have the same basic rights as heterosexuals which currently they do not. ..then to sit around moaning about how 70% of divorces are filed by women and how to "address" that by going BACKWARDS and make it more difficult to get a divorce.And there is no inequality" as far as that goes anyway .Men have the exact same right to get a no fault divorce whenever they want for any reason same as a woman .So the only reason its a "men's rights issue' is because they don't like it that its that easy for women to leave them.

I fully support fathers rights as to custody by having a 50/50 custody as the starting point.But any constructive talk i hear about that (not just ********) is usually found under Father's rights ..Not MRA's..

See that's the problem with the suggestion that because feminist don't take on 'mens rights' issues and that's why the MRA formed and need to sit around calling them man haters...Um no...if you look around what they talk about wanting ???Some of it there is no reason whatsoever they would NEED specifically feminist to address.I think they just WANT them too.Some of it like my above example is down right scary.'Divorce reform")Or trying to make rape more difficult to prove to prevent the estimated 3% of false reports.Which they inflate to an outrageous # .But a lot of it? Is really basically just ******** about women.Why would "feminist' want to spend time "thinking" about and discussing for example how different men and women are ?Which is another thing you hear them harping about ....another "mens issue" is this paranoia that the feminist propaganda is to try and turn men into women...or 'eliminate" genders ". By men becoming more "like" women and women becoming more "like" men. Where we are all exactly "the same" with no masculine or feminine distinction.

Seriously those are some of the "issues" they talk about..they also like to look fondly back at the 'good ole days" (the entire history of human existence). When society which apparrently is 'stuck" between 1950 and 1960 middle class white America in their minds was a much better place including for women.Why would women want to trade in that easier life?When they were protected and taken care of by men?

You think Im exaggerating? How about women who cut their hair off are just rebelling against men? Oh another "romantic era" when the men stayed behind on the Titanic so the women and children could be saved...'Chivarly"..Never mind the fact they were first rescued by class...or the fact the main female character in the movie made about it was being forced into a marriage to an abusive but wealthy man so her mother would not have to live in poverty.

Another 'mens issue' is them being portrayed in some commercials and movies as a bumbling dufus ..or some sort of knuckle dragger while the women are portrayed as safisticated and intelligent...

Really this is the kind of **** that is being 'discussed' by many MRA guys who stop taking the "blue pill" and take the 'red pill' (or is it the other way around?)But yet its feminist 'fault" because they wont even 'think" about men's issues?

I have thought about ..NO I will not support "divorce reform" ..NO I would not support changing laws to make it more difficult to prove rape..Im glad I was born in the time I was I wouldn't go back to 1950...I wont ever take a ride on a ship that doesn't have enough life boats...women just as men are portrayed stereotypically in negative ways equally to men in media ..what do you want me to do about it?I'm not trying to morph into a male and I am not trying to turn men into females so you can relax about that one.

Im sorry the whole idea that these angry disgruntled men are only sulking around harping about how unfair life is because feminist wont even 'think about " men's issues is BS.

OH and one more thing...LOL>>>call me a "man hater" that I don't feel compelled to scour the internet trying to find examples as a feminist cause of 'women rape men too". Which I think most feminist acknowledge already ..then what? In the mean time 1,000,s of children (mostly girls) today as we speak are being held captive for a train of men to rape...honestly???I'm MORE disturbed and concerned about the bigger issue that as we we speak how many male prisoners are being raped right now by other men?Including prisoners of war.But you don't see the MRA in a frenzy to do something about that.They are too busy trying to find cases of women raping men.For me that's very telling about what their motives are.

But hey if feminist would even just think about men's issues their would be no MRA.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If you could do two things to improve the feminist movement, what would those things be?

1) A far greater focus on women's rights internationally - especially in third-world countries, or in countries where religious/cultural oppression marginalizes and harms women and girls.

2) A change in the underlying notions of feminism which still seems to place greater value on masculine roles and attributes than on feminine ones - i.e., a women's perceived value is higher when she embodies more traits tradictionally associated with men than with women. One example of this is how much lip service is given to women who are mothers and homemakers, but more value and validity is applied to women who choose a career instead, or primarily. Ultimately, it seems to be twisted irony of trying to make women more equal, or more valuable, by making them more like men - a position which displays an inherent view that men are more valuable.

 

[DallasApple]

Here is a good one.This is one of the biases /men's issues..

19))Women are always taken seriously. When she speaks-out, people always listen.

Oh no wait this one is better...

48) Married women often go dining on Friday evenings. Yet, the husbands are not invited.

But I think this one is my favorite...

33) Women sometimes walk into Men's bathrooms, etc.. And society thinks there's nothing wrong with it. However, I certainly believe otherwise. Also, mothers are generally unconcerned for the privacy of her sons.

I guess when you create an MRA site and you want to make a list of 100 biases against men you have to get pretty creative.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Sorry where are these "feminazis?" Equating Nazism with feminism is just sad and offensive.
"Women of today are still being called upon to stretch across the gap of male
ignorance and to educate men as to our existence and our needs. This is an
old and primary tool of all oppressors to keep the oppressed occupied with
the master's concerns." - Audre Lorde

Educate yourself sometime instead of blaming feminists for why ignorant men view us as "feminazi's" that word in itself is ridiculous since feminism has nothing to do with nazism and a woman could be called a feminazi just because she believes in her right to legal abortion, or just because she believes in patriarchy theory. In fact anything she is outspoken about could arouse contentions and she be called a "feminazi."

 

[DallasApple]

2) A change in the underlying notions of feminism which still seems to place greater value on masculine roles and attributes than on feminine ones - i.e., a women's perceived value is higher when she embodies more traits tradictionally associated with men than with women. One example of this is how much lip service is given to women who are mothers and homemakers, but more value and validity is applied to women who choose a career instead, or primarily. Ultimately, it seems to be twisted irony of trying to make women more equal, or more valuable, by making them more like men - a position which displays an inherent view that men are more valuable.

On the one hand I agree with this(not being given lip serive is you are a FT SAHM)..on the other hand I disagree that its more like a 'man" to have a career and by that I'm talking about working for money or having an occupation beyond being mother/homemaker that helps provide.Even though traditionally yes most of the child rearing and "domestic" duties were up to the woman ...women throughout history (the majority) have always "worked" beyond kids and home.Maybe in more 'female" designated roles/jobs but they worked.They have worked in fields with babies on their backs pregnant with the next one.They have worked in sweatshops..they have been mid wives(in fact it was women who delivered each others babies)they have even been slaves right along side the men..they have been the maids ...the school teachers..hey...they have even been queens ruling over an entire kingdom.

IOW I don't see it as "more like a man" to have a job BESIDES caring for children and the home.