Women, Men, And Labor

A man in a managerial role is among the only male professionals who is culturally allowed or encouraged to be lazy, depending on the context of the company he works at.  Otherwise, a man as much as not rushing to overwork himself might be falsely perceived as lazy.  With women, the scope of perceived laziness tends to be much more narrow.  Unless they have children to tend to or other more domestic tasks like cooking and cleaning to handle while their male romantic partner is away at work, given that there is no use of monetary resources to outsource these activities, women face little to none of the same biased pressure to engage in labor at all.

Depending on the nature of the exact domestic or professional work in view, either category of labor could be the more physically strenuous or mentally taxing kind.  Domestic work is not automatically more exhausting than professional labor and vice versa.  But then, neither is either kind of labor more suitable to men or women as opposed to people with certain individual personalities, skills, and aspirations.  No one naturally gravitates towards either general sphere of work because of their genitalia.  Only one gender as a whole, though, is allowed in my country to sidestep work as much as is humanly possible, at least if they can financially afford to.  Women are encouraged to abstain from work if they have a man to support them as far as false ideas about gender are concerned.

A rich woman, or the romantic partner of a wealthy man more specifically, is uniquely expected by those in the grip of gender stereotypes to be lazy and even catered to despite her often intentionally parasitic nature.  Oh, she might think because of personal assumptions or cultural conditioning that she is entitled to this life of ease because of her gender (or class) so that she is not really a parasite, but this arrangement is not only sexist against men, but also parasitic on the part of the woman.  She takes full advantage of irrationalistic societal norms and can avoid even the likewise asinine pressure for specifically women to cook, clean, and manage young children because of the wealth she has access to.  Such a woman could simply hire others to do practically everything short of basic actions like lifting a dining utensil to her mouth—and even to do those things!  Whether or not she recklessly or disproportionately spends household money on her own whims, she can genuinely laze through life in a frivolous manner.

On the other hand, other than perhaps extremely wealthy men who are respected on a classist basis and hence not a valid one, men are commonly expected to be productive just to be somehow worthy of being a man, as if they are not men by just having a male body.  The lazy male managerial or executive figure at least is often "supposed" to have a job.  Is a man married?  Is he unmarried?  It regularly makes no difference for the stereotype, though enormous wealth might help someone sidestep this misandry.  If he is married, he is usually "supposed" to maintain some sort of income which he can use to appease or support his possibly parasitic female partner.  But at almost every opportunity, many women are socially allowed to not professionally work.

Being a woman comes with its own perils and discrimination in a world like this one, yes.  None of this erases how sexist discrimination cuts both ways.  Gender stereotypes were always illogical by nature, but while women are now more widely encouraged to choose to stay at home or work professionally (whether or not children are involved), men are still pushed to volunteer themselves as willing workers as long as their health permits it.  If the woman is white and wealthy on her own or by association with a male romantic partner, then, in spite of all the absolute idiocy that might be directed towards her for being a woman (or white, or rich), she also has an even grander combination of social "privilege" in a country like America.  She can financially and socially afford to brush off almost any deep-rooted discrimination or the more general woes of the nation.

Is having privilege irrational or evil?  No, since it does not require that one ideologically accept or strive to benefit from any form of illicit discrimination.  Whether a society arbitrarily affords someone privilege is usually not within their control one way or another.  However, women who try to get away without working professionally or otherwise because they are women and are allowed to by idiots have erred, along with women or men who try to reinforce stricter expectations of labor for men because of their gender.  As these women revel in varying degrees of relaxation or luxury, others, usually men, have their lives waste away as they labor in order to provide support.

Already, sexism is logically incorrect for various reasons, such as how nonphysical traits literally have nothing to do with gender or the inherent hypocrisy of treating men and women differently except when it comes to acknowledging anatomical and physiological differences.  Some add to these errors by pretending like the Bible endorses or commands them.  Not a word is said in favor of this already illogical idea of men morally having to work because they are men and women being morally free to indulge in exploitative laziness because they are women, but passages that clearly treat men and women as total equals in matters of labor and/or rest like the Sabbath commands of Exodus 20:8-10 and Deuteronomy 5:12-14 very obviously contradict such sexism.  Labor, including the manual sort, is not prescribed for men and domestic labor, non-manual labor, or default relaxation for women!  Verses like these are rigidly egalitarian.

Well after true gender egalitarianism has become more mainstream in the workplace, entertainment, and the more casual aspects of life, pseudo-feminism (not genuine feminism, aka egalitarianism) remains popular, reinforcing the idea that men have to work just because they were born with a certain anatomy.  Or, pseudo-feminism can involve the idea that men at least have to work longer or harder than women just because they were born with a certain anatomy.  While of course people of either gender are stupid and oppressive for holding to this false philosophy with its distinctive misandry, as well as the misogyny that stems from it (like women being regarded as incapable of professional work or as being in the wrong for supporting themselves), women who willingly benefit from this ideology without rightfully pushing back against it are truly human parasites.