The study, conducted by Dr Demid Getik, explores how mental health is related to income make-up within couples by examining the link between annual income rises for women and the number of clinical mental health diagnoses over a set period of time.
The study finds that as more women take on the breadwinner role in the household, the number of mental health related incidences also increases.
As wives begin earning more than their husbands, the probability of receiving a mental health diagnosis increases by as much as 8% for all those observed in the study, but by as much as 11% for the men.
Are you certain that’s how this actually works? Could it be that typical gender roles developed as they did because each of the sexes took on the roles they were suited for, and switching that up isn’t as simple as some would like to think?
Personally I’d suggest that men tend to be more competitive, and therefore are more suited to the work environment where you’re fighting against various external influences of indeterminate nature, while women tend to be more empathetic, and therefore are more suited to the home environment where seeking consensus and cohesion is more important.
Wtf.
Wtf is that this nonsense about the sexes being interchangeable has gone uncontested in popular culture for so long. Even when it’s suggested that behaving that way is leading to a rise in mental health issues people are completely unwilling to even discuss the possibility there is something else going on here.
Why is the idea that all of human history before now being completely wrong such an unquestionable truth today?
Bring your receipts.
Show your sources that for all human history things have been one specific way. Don’t forget to adjust for the fact that your education, media, socialization are all geared towards the current economic system and therefore are slanted to reinforce norms that feed that system.
Because it’s not “all of human history” it’s at best “eurocentric,” a western belief system. There were and are many cultures that value women as leaders and not just relegated to the kitchen. It’s just “us westerners” that have this fucked up view of a womans “place.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy
Well, I think this is a bit of an exaggeration. Patriarchy is a pretty dominant social structure across many different cultures, not just European. There are exceptions, yes, but it seems far more common than it should be if that was purely coincidental. Based on my reading, patriarchy is strongly associated with the rise of agriculture and with patrilocal marriage and may not have existed prior to those institutions, but early human history has a very scant level of evidence remaining, unfortunately.
However, the relatively low sexual dimorphism in humans does suggest that early human societies were fairly egalitarian with respect to the sexes.
Isn’t there the theory that agriculture basically pushed patriarchy because of several factors?
Just a quick glance into this article: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230525-how-did-patriarchy-actually-begin
gives some insights which do not sound too wrong. For example the article mentions the theory that the rise in property included the need for defense against others and you are better at this with more people. The article also theorizes that “social elites emerged as some people built up more property than others, driving men to want to make sure their wealth would pass onto their legitimate children”.
Very interesting article. I might need to check out the author’s book, it sounds right up my alley.
Another interesting fact is that as we’ve seen these agrarian and patrilocal traditions weaken under capitalism, we suddenly see a strong push for gender equality after thousands of years of consistent oppression. This also fits the pattern, although the number of dramatic changes to society in recent centuries make it difficult to pinpoint exact causes.
But I think the key to this is a certain amount of wealth and not capitalism itself. Gender equality was a bit better under communism for example, which would fit the theory of inheritance mentioned in the article.
Man, blaming “patriarchy” bugs the hell out of me, because I’m from northern European backgrounds, and we’ve been perfectly fine with female leaders basically forever. Our societies are an equal partnership between men and women, each doing what they’re best suited for, but neither dominating the relationship. I know there are fucked up cultures out there which are run by men dominating women, but can we please stop trying to erase the fact that it IS actually possible to get along?
LOL you’re one of the dudes who would be butthurt by the woman making more money
Ah yes, of course the housewife and the kitchen are an example of co-evolution.
Yes. I’m certain you’re a fucking idiot.
Good lord…
🚨multiple counts of transphobia detected in modlog, opinion invalid🚨
Thanks for shortcutting my block decision. 👍🏻
Are you fucking stupid, or did you just wake up from a 100 year nap?
Rumpelstiltskin over here with opinions
Neckbeard incel lol
ROFL
or, we could NOT predefine roles for people based on sex, and let individuals make decisions for themselves. Maybe not everyone is the same, imagine that!
Society couldn’t even get which gender wears pants/skirts right, I wouldn’t trust it on this.
As a Celt, your assertion confuses me.
I dunno, maybe on average.
When I was unemployed for a bit between contracts, my wife made all the income and I paid for what I could with my emergency fund. (Everything worked out fine)
I did basically all the chores, cooking, cleaning, shopping, etc. in addition to looking for work and working on “side-hustles”.
She wishes that she made enough money so that we could hit that dual-income level alone and I could become a house husband for her, lmao
And hey, if she could make enough money on her own, I’d love that! Lol
I think one issue with this viewpoint is you are assuming that work is intrinsically competitive, but that’s a result of male-dominated workplaces, not only a cause, though it may be self-reinforcing to an extent. There’s no reason workplaces can’t be more focused on consensus and cohesion. I’ve worked in several female-dominated organizations and they tend to be this way and they work just fine.
That assumption is based upon the idea that working with a broad range of strangers means you can’t trust people specifically, so you have to work towards your goals. From that you will end up cooperating naturally with anyone who shares your goals, but you will also have to compete fiercely with those who have goals antagonistic to your own.
Knowing Lemmy, this comment is probably highly downvoted, but this is the likely explanation for it in my opinion as well.