Men who do the housework are more likely to get the girl
August 4, 2009
Marriage rates in different countries can be linked to views on who is responsible for doing the housework.
(PhysOrg.com) -- An Oxford study suggests that if you want to settle down, your chances of getting married or living with someone are probably highest in Great Britain, the Scandinavian countries and the United States.
According to the study, men in those countries are more likely than their Australian counterparts to do the household chores and thereby make marriage a more attractive option to their nation’s women.
According to an Oxford economist, marriage and cohabiting rates in developed countries can be linked to attitudes towards the roles of men and women, and views on who is responsible for doing the housework and looking after the children.
Both men and women have shown they are more likely to want a live-in relationship with the opposite sex if they think their partner will do a share of the housework and childcare duties.
The study constructs an ‘egalitarian index’ of 12 developed countries, based on responses to questionnaires about gender, housework and childcare responsibilities. Norway and Sweden top the egalitarian index, with Great Britain in third place, followed by the United States. At the bottom of the index are Japan, Germany, and Austria, with Australia languishing as the least egalitarian.
Data about the number of women in partnerships was then compared against the index. Women of similar age and educational background were compared across the participating countries to see if their country’s rating on the egalitarian index bore any relation to whether they were living with a man or not. Other controlling factors, such as female unemployment, were taken account of.
The study found that women living in less egalitarian countries were between 20 and 50 per cent less likely to be living with a man than comparable women living in a more egalitarian country. For instance, the findings would predict that the average British woman was 8.5 percentage points more likely than a similar Australian woman to be in a live-in relationship.
Study author Dr Almudena Sevilla-Sanz, an ESRC-funded researcher at the Centre for Time Use Research at Oxford University, concludes that women living in countries with the highest proportion of egalitarian men are more likely to marry or live with a man.
The study also suggests that a more egalitarian woman in any country is less likely than a less egalitarian woman to set up home with a man because, everything else being equal, most men would choose a woman who they can rely on to do housework and look after the children. While egalitarian men seem to be viewed as a better bet by women, egalitarian women are seen as a less safe bet by men.
Dr Sevilla-Sanz said: ‘In egalitarian countries you might, in principle, expect to see women preferring to remain single rather than face the prospect of spending more time doing household chores. However, this study shows that in egalitarian countries there is less social stigma attached to men doing what was traditionally women’s work.
'For instance, if paternity leave is the social norm, more men take it. This leads to men in egalitarian societies taking on more of a domestic role so the likelihood of forming a harmonious household becomes greater, resulting in a higher proportion of couples setting up households in these countries.
‘If developed countries want to look at why the birth rate in their country is falling, we need to focus on the drivers for whether couples decide to live together and start a family. It seems to show what couples ask "Will I be better off?". Women in less egalitarian countries are saying "No". Countries with a low birth rate face the challenge of a shrinking workforce in coming decades with questions about who will pay for public services and social support.’
The representative sample of 13,500 men and women, aged between 20-45 years old from each of the 12 countries, was taken from the same survey carried out in 1994 and 2002 as part of the International Social Survey Program.
Provided by Oxford University (news : web)
Aug 30, 2007 |
not rated yet |
0
Well not to brush off the machismo hairball fountaining out of the collar of your shirt but if you can appreciate a woman who knows how to change her own oil ride a bike or fish did you ever think you she might appreicate someone who could help her out or appricate things she likes to do?
They're leaving out one major component: the amount of work done by the employed spouse(s) at their place of employment. I don't see how any definition of "egalitarian" could be complete without factoring this in. Otherwise a couple with a stay-at-home spouse can only earn the title "egalitarian" if the working spouse does three times as much total work as the other spouse (assuming that housework and employed-work are considered equal, and that the working spouse does all the employed-work and half the housework.)
Well, I guess they were only applying the "egalitarian index" to countries -- not to individual couples. But if you completely ignore the contribution made by a spouse through his/her employment, then the only way for a country to be considered "egalitarian" is if men and women are equally likely to be the working spouse (and work the same number of hours for the same pay.) And that would be a great situation. But it still seems unfair to tell the employed spouse "Your work at your employer counts for zero in this relationship, and your country is only considered egalitarian because it has enough other good-for-nothing spouses of the opposite gender to balance out your own worthlessness."
Study finds men who hold traditional views of women earn more than men who don't:
http://www.physor...122.html
And salary is the best pheromone for average woman...
oh... and the first time that there is some situtaion where he has to respond as a masculine man would, and he doesnt, thats the date you can measure the decline in their relationship.
biologically speaking a man who stays home and does the houswork does not bring home the wildebeast. and so biology has evolved that if he underperforms her expectations SHE gets the problem, not him (who adapts to her needs - which is why despotic politicos focus on women and the young).
many of things the harridens spout play on this nature of us, which they also denies exists (so you can be sure that they are either lying and getting you not to think about the outcoems of policy to our natures, or ignorant and so our natures are not in the consideration when they make up some policy. either way, the outcome is misery, and masked by the only superior skill that they do have. disimulation and correction of perceptions after the fact (which is why they dont worry about the damage they do, they wont get blamed they will blame the people for not being what they claim they were)
ultimately they will not like the kind of society that they believe they are making. in that society the state will control the birth decisions, the state will take the children away at a young age so that the mother can return to working. there will be no holidays, for holidays are family traditions, and there will only be state holidays. there will be no churches, not even for weddings cause there wont be weddings. women will not earn enough for their own rooms, they will live in barracks like they do in china. there will not be fashioned and frills to spend time with, because thats a bourgesie waste.
out of the millions who died and fleed these kinds of living conditions these geniuses never seem to beleive them. their reality is so mentally derived that they can deny any empirical point if its inconvenient, and dash away any concept that their ideas are poision.
Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10
these people have never lived in such a state...
in a way, there will be justice one way or another.
in this case it will be when they realize what they have made and what that will do to their children. the ones they dont have in which their family trees are pruned and made extinct since they dont matter to them. billions of years of an unbroken chain of desperate survival, and they think that their contribution isnt worth anything so they trade it in for some misery dressed up as fun.