|
TAFKAA -> RE: Well I could've told you that! (2/4/2013 10:28:12 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: egern
Ok I'll bite :-)
The version I read noticed that the outcome was uncertain because in a number of couples the man and woman reported a different sex frequency.
Furthermore, the English article ends:
"However, the study's authors stop short of arguing that house husbands should hang up their aprons. Of course they did. And I'll wager political correctness has a lot to do with that.
quote:
"Men who refuse to help around the house could increase conflict in their marriage and lower their wives' marital satisfaction," Kornrich said. Could, schmould. There's only one marker of marital satisfaction - does the wife continue to stay.
quote:
"Earlier research has found that women's marital satisfaction is indeed linked to men's participation in overall household labor, which encompasses tasks traditionally done by both men and women."" Yeah, women say that shit, but frankly, it's fucking nonsense. A woman's satisfaction with her man is linked to the degree to which he's pursuing his life purpose. Sure she doesn't want to be left alone, but egalitarian division of household labour isn't going to help matters and it definitely hurts them.
quote:
Another comment of earlier studies:
"If you hang out on the Internet long enough all things become true. Just over three years ago, I wrote about a survey purporting to find that the more housework a married man does, the more nookie he “gets.” And now we have a new study reporting that the more housework a man does, the less sex he has — at least that’s how most news outlets are reporting it. Don’t you just love it when science allows you to pick and choose research that aligns with your worldview?"
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/31/do_the_dishes_have_less_sex/
Yes, the Salon article doesn't actually say anything useful at all - instead it goes off on a completely irrelevant tangent "Yes, they're having more sex, but IS IT BETTER SEX!??!?!?"
Irrelevant nonsense.
I'd also point out that all those fucking house husbands are being comprehensively dumped by their wives: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-467390/Househusband-backlash-high-flying-wives-ditch-men-em-em-wanted-stay-home.html
And heaven help a guy if he loses his job. While a woman being kept by a man doesn't raise any eyebrows, if the situation is reversed, you can expect her to dump you: http://www.savvysugar.com/Unemployed-Men-More-Likely-Divorce-18259353
I'll also point out that women in this thread keep asserting that men who do this and that are 'adorable'.
Adorable means they're cuddly puppies. It doesn't mean they want to fuck 'em.
People who rail against gender roles usually do so because they're utter shite at the roles and tasks at which their gender usually excels. In other words, they lack success and so seek to redefine the idea of success or dismiss it to cope with the harsh reality of being a loser.
This article and others demonstrate the folly of modelling a relationship as an androgynous partnership. Gender strengths and weaknesses form an intimate part of what attracts us to the other. While there's room for variation (masculine women/feminine men partnerships as an example), androgyny as the norm is the stuff of sheer madness.
|
|
|
|
