ChaosDegenerate

I'm totally ignorant in all of that, but for me it just looks like out of sudden (historically) we have way too many males. They used to be killed during hunting, wars, competition with other males. Since 1945 we haven't had that. Men became not as hot commodity. This is the motor of the current social changes, isn't it?

For example: only 40% of all Homo Sapiens Sapiens males that have ever lived were able to have offspring. Compared to 80% females.

Please keep in mind, I said socio-economic status. But, homeless looking, constantly drank, smelling of urine Charles Bukowski had plenty of young, attractive and willing lovers. My point being exactly his high socio-economic status. We're talking about one of the best American poets. How many of these you get to meet? Hey, he might even write a poem about feeling he has for you if he likes you. That's what was so damn hot about the guy. Not money. With no money at all, his status was extremely high. I'm not pushing this vulgar simplistic idea here that women are all about money. They are after men who are really, really good in their niche. Even when the niche doesn't provide any money. It's about status they're after. This usually translate into money, but not always. Bukowski was dirt poor. With high status.

EDIT: grammar

Of course they did. So that they can work. But don't have too. Great deal if you ask me.

well, somehow the society at large has no problem with exactly opposite generalization: that women prefer to work over staying home with their kids.

It is an individual matter, I agree. With most women definitely having the preference of staying at home. But for that the right partner is needed, i.e. one who provides enough resources for her and her kids. If this is not present she will go to work. We decided as a society to frame it different just not to face difficult truth, which is society becoming poorer. It's just so much easier to say that somehow nowadays women prefer working to following their maternal instinct.

As a man you are wired to compete with other males for resources to be brought to your partner and offspring. I'm sorry but this is just how it works. Women define male attractivness based on his socio-economic status. Of course if you don't want your wife (and other females and society at large) to look down at you, you will eventually go back to work and work your ass off. She on the other hand, can but she doesn't need to. It's not like you or pretty much anyone will look down at her for not working. Current social fashions aren't going to change five milion years of evolution of the species.

Yes, but also it's not like having maternal instinct wouldn't make this decision easier for you.

And keep in mind, statistics say than one of the divorce factors is husband making less than wife. From her perspective: this isn't sexy at all.

The thing with female workforce participation: isn't it just symptom of the society getting poorer. My wife worked her ass off. I was making about 130k / year. She was making about 60k / year. Then we not only moved from the US to Poland (where live is just so much cheaper). But I also started making about 330k / year. All the willingness to work evaporated on her part :-) Instead we have another kid. She stopped talking about work and started talking about having more kids. Of course, that's anectodal, but also common sense, isn't it?

My little theory is that while men still made enough money to support good life in the US (50s, 60s) most women just didn't want to work. If you can have a house, nice car, four kids, vacation home, 40 hour week, no credit card debt, no school debt, and all of that on carpenter salary -- why not to enjoy life instead of spending 50-60 hours at the office?

The dirty secret is that most women work because they HAVE TO. It's not a choice. It's sold to the society at large as something glamorous because -- what? They're going to tell the truth? Yeah, you need to work your ass off 50-60 hours a week, with credit card debt, student loan debt, two cars loan, etc, etc. just to be able barely make it to have two kids at 35 ? Because before that you need advanced degree or two. Actually both of you do... I mean how is that a better deal?

I can see that also from the reaction of my wife friends who stayed in the US working to basically help their husbands as one salary won't cut it. It's not like they wouldn't prefer to stay at home with kids. But, again, it's not like they have a choice.

yeah, but they will not attempt destroying them financially too. EU fines US companies as if it wanted to get rid of them from the market. Not like it'd like to just fine them.

Also, note, how during Trump presidency EU is so much more cautious with that. Cynic in me says that's the proof that it is and has always been political. US can go after VW, MB, BMW, Porsche, Siemens, etc. There is no way that no federal laws are violated with the scale od operations these companies have in the US. All it takes is skilled and ambitious US Attorney General on Trump orders. Look at Lufthansa. All they need to do, and there were gossips about it being implemented already, is to ban electronics on flights to the US due to "battery self-ignition risk". But exempt US based carriers. Remember customer is always right. And Germany's BEST customer (who also happens to provide military security) is the US. Some people in EU seem not to grasp this simple truth

It is funny how you think there is no corruption in Brussels. Of course it is there! The rules of the game are though that we don't touch our own Corporations. So Brussels will look the other way when VW cheats their customers in the US and Washington won't care when let's say Google has its way in EU. The real difference is that corruption is somehow legalized in the USA (a.k.a "lobbying") while it's not in the EU, so you will just not know about VW CEO hadling bags of money to Brussels unelected environnmental commissar.

I have no problem with the distinction you presented. The problem I have is with organizations like WHO that pathologize normal behaviors. In 2018 WHO not only added "sex" to their addiction list. They also added computer games. Not to mention "toxic masculinity" "disorder". So, these are now "well understood clinical destructive addictions" too? Because, hey, this is what clinical psychologists in places like EU use to diagnose "disorders" and "addictions". ICD is the name of the diagnostic book issued by WHO and yes, stuff like this was added by them in 2018 into the latest iteration of ICD-11. So if you happen to be more conservative than WHO would like you to be, don't be surprised to be labeled "computer games addict" (targeted specifically at males, somehow there is no "social media addiction" mentioned that would target females), "toxic masculinity disordered", "homophobic" too. They should change name to "clinical liberal ideology" or more honestly "New Middle Ages Crusaders" for all I care. This is not science anymore and I think ideologist running ideologies like "psychology" are on the collision course with majority of population. Actually have been for some time. Which we know from elections results in places like US (Trump), UK (Brexit), France (Le Pen), Germany (AfD), Eastern Europe, not to mention places where I don't think anyone pays attention to their left-invented disorders like Russia and China. Wondering how it will play out for them long term.

But hey, this is the risk you take when you decide to be more of an ideologist than scientist.