Woman Simulator Game

[Etherial Cat]

9 hours ago, Jirh said:

I double checked with AI. Gemini says it's true.

Yeah, I see this more like an aspect of emotional availability, not necessarily a full-on stay-at-home dad. The trend you described highlights awareness of unmet needs and speaks to mental health ideals.

More on topic, I can't imagine the pain women have to go through to give birth. And I don't even want to imagine it. I just know it's so bad that no simulation can truly translate it into comprehension.

I didn't doubt it. I trust you on that one 

Yes, some men nowadays are very interested in bonding with their kids and want to be a bigger part of their life than just being the provider. It's healthy and is natural part of emotional availability.

As for childbirth, I can't imagine it to be very pleasing, but the joy of holding the baby is a great reward. I am still as clueless as you are . 

[Etherial Cat]

9 hours ago, aurum said:

Curious, do you think if you could fulfill your contributions and projects without the financial aspect you'd be happy with that?

Or are you against financial dependence in principle?

I ask because this is something I see a lot of modern women trying to balance: the tension of being a mother, without letting it consuming your entire identity.

What bothers me most is that relationships are inherently uncertain. People evolve, feelings change, relationships transform, and circumstances shift. That's why I don't think anyone should make their long-term survival dependent on the stability of a romantic relationship.

Financial dependence is a risk in itself, one that I'm personally unwilling to take. And I suspect very few people would willingly accept that degree of vulnerability outside the context of marriage or a romantic relationship.

Once your financial survival depends on keeping a relationship intact, you may find yourself desperately trying to preserve something that no longer works, or tolerating situations you would otherwise find unacceptable simply because leaving isn't financially viable.

Of course, marrying someone extremely wealthy who provides you with a house, a trust fund, or some other form of financial security could mitigate that risk. But even then, I think it's important to maintain the skills, resources, financial literacy, and ability to create value that allow you to navigate the world independently. People die, businesses fail, fortunes disappear, and circumstances change.

As for motherhood, I actually love children, and I think contributing to creating and raising a family is an enormous privilege. I can easily imagine it being one of the most fulfilling things I could ever do.

But children have two parents, and I think traditional gender roles have historically deprived men of opportunities to participate fully in raising their own children. That's a shame, because I believe both fathers and children benefit enormously from spending time together and developing a close relationship.

And naturally, every hour the children spend with their father is also an hour during which their mother is free to pursue other interests, work on projects, or simply enjoy some time to herself. I personally have a strong need to create, learn, and work on projects, and I don't see why that should be incompatible with loving motherhood.

There's also the fact that raising children is an evolving responsibility, not a permanent state of intensive caregiving. The early years are particularly demanding, but children gradually become more autonomous. Our role as parents evolves from providing constant care to offering guidance, support, and increasingly more freedom.

And that's healthy for them, too. Children need to discover the world, develop their own identities, and become independent individuals rather than remain permanently under their mother's protective wing, however loving she may be.

So I don't see motherhood as something that should require sacrificing the rest of my identity, my projects, or my financial independence. Nor do I think being a good mother means being the parent who does absolutely everything.

If anything, I'd want my children to have two fully involved parents, each with a meaningful relationship with them, and each with a life and identity beyond parenthood.

Ultimately, I'm not against a partner providing financial support, nor do I think every contribution to a family needs to be financially compensated. I simply don't want my ability to survive independently to depend on the continued goodwill, love, or financial stability of another person.

[Etherial Cat]

2 hours ago, Basman said:

Because we live in luxury. Ukraine shows that when life becomes more capricious, people revert to more traditional forms of labor division. Its a matter of survival.

Seems like progress is back on the timeline, and that progress changes gender roles as a matter of survival. 

[Basman]

41 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Seems like progress is back on the timeline, and that progress changes gender roles as a matter of survival. 

You got it backwards. Survival -> progress. The better you get at survival, the less brutal you need to be in order to survive. You have feminism by virtue of standing on the shoulders of giants.

[Etherial Cat]

22 minutes ago, Basman said:

You have feminism by virtue of standing on the shoulders of giants.

Feminism emerged after humanity had gone through a long historical cycle of patriarchal social organization, stretching from the rise of agrarian societies to the Industrial Revolution.

Earlier hunter-gatherer societies were often considerably more egalitarian, and some prehistoric cultures may even have worshipped a Great Goddess or other female deities.

A lot of people look at how societies are organized through the narrow lens of the historical period we've only recently emerged from, mistaking it for some universal, timeless norm. But it was just one particular form of social organization, shaped by specific historical and material conditions, rather than an immutable feature of human nature.

[Basman]

52 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Feminism emerged after humanity had gone through a long historical cycle of patriarchal social organization, stretching from the rise of agrarian societies to the Industrial Revolution.

Earlier hunter-gatherer societies were often considerably more egalitarian, and some prehistoric cultures may even have worshipped a Great Goddess or other female deities.

No, it's a feature of post-industrial capitalism. Feminism is a modern ideology that stems from liberalism, which are relatively recent inventions.

Hunter-gatherers are definitely not feminist. They laugh at the idea. The relative egalitarianism of hunter-gatherers is more a product of scarcity. Not true altruism. There's still division of labor and status. 

1 hour ago, Etherial Cat said:

A lot of people look at how societies are organized through the narrow lens of the historical period we've only recently emerged from, mistaking it for some universal, timeless norm. But it was just one particular form of social organization, shaped by specific historical and material conditions, rather than an immutable feature of human nature.

Human nature is whatever it needs to be. Treating women like equals is the exception, not the norm. Consider that slavery was perfectly normal and okay for almost as long as we've had civilizations. That is the extent we went to in order to survive. Feel good fantasies does you no good about appreciating the gravity of the situation.

[enchanted]

No discussion on the patriarchy is complete without this lecture by Dr Rahman (from a channel shared on Leo's blog).

Basically patriarchy started with the domestication of animals, and was encouraged by the women.

Human groups started out as egalitarian, but the domestication of animals brought in a large new form of wealth.  Because the men were in charge of the animals, it was in the women's interest to commit themselves to a patriarch to secure resources for offspring. Both men and women chose patriarchy as a means of survival for their offspring. 

The video also explains that the reason a woman needs to commit to one man but not necessarily vice versa is because men can't be sure they are the father otherwise; while women are always sure who their kids are. Men didn't want to support kids that aren't theirs. 

Edited 5 hours ago by enchanted

[Etherial Cat]

@Basman

You're confusing feminism as a modern political movement with egalitarianism as a form of social organization. I never claimed hunter-gatherers were feminists.

And the existence of gendered divisions of labor doesn't contradict relative egalitarianism. Nor is egalitarianism necessarily altruistic. Societies can develop mechanisms that limit domination because those arrangements serve their members' interests.

As for slavery, you're actually illustrating my point. The fact that an institution was normalized for centuries doesn't make it an immutable feature of human nature.

My argument is simply that social arrangements emerge under particular material and historical conditions, evolve, and can eventually disappear. You're arguing against a romanticized version of my position that I never expressed.

@enchanted
 

I've already watched numerous videos and read extensively about the historical origins of patriarchal societies. I've also attended university courses on the subject, including the history of law from archaic times to the present, studied patriarchal legal systems such as Roman law in depth, and examined their evolution into modern continental legal systems. I've also explored broader theoretical frameworks and meta-theories like Ken Wilber.

I consider myself reasonably well-informed on the subject and don't particularly need to be lectured about it. But thank you, I am sure you only meant good.

 

[enchanted]

36 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

@Basman

.

@enchanted
 

I've already watched numerous videos and read extensively about the historical origins of patriarchal societies. I've also attended university courses on the subject, including the history of law from archaic times to the present, studied patriarchal legal systems such as Roman law in depth, and examined their evolution into modern continental legal systems. I've also explored broader theoretical frameworks and meta-theories like Ken Wilber.

I consider myself reasonably well-informed on the subject and don't particularly need to be lectured about it. But thank you, I am sure you only meant good.

 

Oh geez

Edited 4 hours ago by enchanted

[Etherial Cat]

@enchanted

Shouldn't have snapped like that.

Sorry.

You just wanted to share and your comment wasn't even directed at me.

[Leo Gura]

22 hours ago, Etherial Cat said:

My only takeaway from the reactions and Twitch streams I've seen is that most men wouldn't enjoy being in the position of a financially dependent homemaker.

Of course men don't enjoy that because men don't like being submissive.

But it is bad for women too. It is bad for anyone to be financially trapped.

[Apparition of Jack]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course men don't enjoy that because men don't like being submissive.

But it is bad for women too. It is bad for anyone to be financially trapped.

What do you think about some sort of “maternal wage” given to every woman with kids in order to pay for food, necessities etc, specially so they’re not so financial dependent on spouses / relatives etc? It’s a thought I’ve had for a long time but never really fleshed out.

[Etherial Cat]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course men don't enjoy that because men don't like being submissive.

But it is bad for women too. It is bad for anyone to be financially trapped.

I'm genuinely curious about your perspective on this.

If you were a woman considering marriage and raising children, what proportion of potential partners do you think you'd feel comfortable entrusting with the responsibility of providing for you and your children, particularly if that meant becoming financially dependent on them?

I'm interested in how you'd approach that decision yourself.

 

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

I'm genuinely curious about your perspective on this.

If you were a woman considering marriage and raising children, what proportion of potential partners do you think you'd feel comfortable entrusting with the responsibility of providing for you and your children, particularly if that meant becoming financially dependent on them?

I'm interested in how you'd approach that decision yourself.

I would not trust anyone to provide for me. I would try to maintain some kind of career so that I am able to earn money if I need it.

There is a middle way between no career vs nothing but career.

Mothers should have some degree of career, even if they don't do it full time.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[Etherial Cat]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

I would not trust anyone to provide for me. I would try to maintain some kind of career so that I am able to earn money if I need it.

What would you accept to trust your husband with, and to what point ?

Submissive sounds like going against one's will/decision process to me.

If not, that's not being submissive but enjoying/being cool with the ride.

 

[Leo Gura]

18 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

What would you accept to trust your husband with, and to what point ?

I don't trust anyone with anything. So I am the wrong person to answer your question.

[trenton]

9 hours ago, aurum said:

Fair enough, if that’s how they designed it.

Being a homemaker in a good home is not equivalent to slavery though. That’s a stretch.

https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/advice/modern-slavery/modern-slavery-human-trafficking/domestic-servitude

You need to read about domestic servitude. This is human trafficking and you are a slave. It is not a stretch. This is actually how human trafficking works. The good home is the facade. It is like a white washed tomb.

Look up domestic servitude and see what you can find. This is the point of being financially trapped.

[Etherial Cat]

@Leo Gura

God has your trust and your back, and that's a big one.

And also, thanks for your answers.

I appreciate it.

[trenton]

I don't think you guys have watched the video all the way through. This entire scenario is about being trapped by organized criminals. The plot of the game is that you are trapped and being prevented from leaving. There are criminals threatening you if you don't comply in the worst ending and they track you down if you try to leave.

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, trenton said:

trapped by organized criminals.

Well, that is sick but that makes it less interesting because it is too black and white.

Most women are not trapped by organized criminals. That's a freak situation and it does not reflect a typical marriage.

Edited 26 minutes ago by Leo Gura