It depends. After all “women and children first” has been the historical norm. Men have been treated as disposable for the history of humanity. Men get drafted to fight wars, women don’t.
> This forum is full of men who don't work solely for money. Who work for challenge, to feel like they can do something special, to compete, to be with collegues, because the job fits their personality well etc.
I have a great job but definitely work for the money. I am after all enriching the founders, execs and investors. I don’t think it’s a great idea to glamorize working for someone else.
That was not historical norm really. It happened once on side of titanic partly and in most situations there was no ordering. Yes, men died in wars. Then you had areas with many women and less men. The men were the ones making decisions still, voting, owning property, having accounts and the ones who were supposed to be head of household and women the ones considered stupider and having less options.
Male physical power and inability to be pregnant had a lot to do with most of this. Obviously.
The end result was that telling men to be more like girls would amount to massive insult.
It is about work and profession being super glamorous. It is about aspects of it fullfiling human psychology in small and big things that you don't even realize until you looses it.
I replied in depth up thread but I don’t agree. You’re framing this in a very specific lens of a very narrow period of time and ignoring all of the negative stereotypes about men and positive stereotypes about women that existed at that time as well.
> This forum is full of men who don't work solely for money. Who work for challenge, to feel like they can do something special, to compete, to be with collegues, because the job fits their personality well etc.
I have a great job but definitely work for the money. I am after all enriching the founders, execs and investors. I don’t think it’s a great idea to glamorize working for someone else.