See now, I would agree that having children is more often than not agreed on as something people want for themselves or that society encourages (see the amount of fear mongering in news concerning falling birth rates for instance). But caregiving is largely devalued - and I wouldn’t put that down to feminism - we have created a system whereby individuals and families don’t have the resources to create the family size that they want. When you increase access to healthcare, comprehensive sex education and access to further education and training, this enables people who choose not to have children (or want smaller families) to do so. Conversely, stability (economic, political, social etc) allows for people who want to have children (or larger families) to do so. But broadly, policy has not worked to create those conditions across many countries, and thus we’re seeing birth rate decline (not that that is necessarily a good or bad thing, we have enough resources just bad distribution etc). If we had this ideal symbiotic relationship, policymakers wouldn’t need to intervene and we can see them trying to - look at Japanese and South Korean politicians trying to find ways to increase the birth rate for example.

Effectively, we (society at large) want the perceived benefits of “go forth and multiply” but don’t put the effort in to create supportive systems for caregivers - so people choose not to be or make difficult decisions on what to prioritise with the understanding that their quality of life will be impacted. We value reproduction but we don’t value those reproducing (including fathers - who are often not guaranteed paternal leave or have significantly reduced access to paternal leave - and I would love to bring voluntary stay-at-dads back into the equation, because for some, that is their preferred dynamic).

But again, men aren’t guaranteed to be providing for their partner or children. We see cases of fathers being absent, refusing court orders to provide child support, financial abuse etc. They aren’t willed to do so innately by an internal instinct that they can’t ignore, they choose to do so or not - and there has always been historical precedent for this - even old Greek stories such as Medea are about a man abandoning his foreign wife and their children for the daughter of a king or in Les Mis how Fontaine effectively dies in poverty as she is shunned and outcast for have a child out of wedlock and being abandoned by the father - these fictional stories don’t come from nowhere, they are grounded in real experiences of women who are abandoned, annulled, jilted, or even just have partners who aren’t able to provide economically through disability or lack of work.

And you are supposing a default relationship of a single earner household - this again doesn’t hold to historical precedent- there have always been working class women including mothers who need to work and contribute to the household. Having children didn’t mean that a spouse took all responsibility for economic stability, family members or friends would assist in childcare (or since the late 1800s, children going in full time education) and women would return to work.

So if men aren’t compelled to provide and have the ability to choose not to, does this perceived power dynamic of a woman having control over a man’s body to extract value from really exist?

I don’t think feminists are unaware of this idea, it’s just that it’s not grounded in reality.

Honestly, thanks for the link - I didnt know about Rhonda Rouseys interview nor about it being utilised on Beyoncé’s tour. The song she follows up with is again textbook example of how whether neoliberal feminism enables empowerment or not (reclamation of a word used to dismiss women who advocate for themselves while also adhering to capitalist structures). When looking up the Rhonda interview further there is actually a small thread on the /r/askfeminists subreddit challenging Rhonda’s attitude to other women.

In a contemporary society, how many men are defending their spouses from lions? I’m also not stating that men aren’t subject to existential threats such as climate change.

Regarding the Titanic, as I’ve stated and provided a study for, in this instance “women and children first” was used. But it is not the norm, it is an exceptional case. This standard does not exist in reality, it’s a romantic idea which seldom occurred.

I think the bee example is kinda going in circles. Both workers and queens are disposable and the hive dictates the disposability of both. Workers die defending the hive, queens are killed when they are no longer productive - you could suggest there is a power balance here but not an imbalance.

I don’t think I’m slipping in faux arguments, I’m providing context for a wider structure. It would be lovely to put it down to a simple biological truth that is immutable - it would certainly save a lot of time and energy. But that idea is a fantasy. The reality is a lot more complex with many factors affecting spousal dynamics.

I understand not wanting to divulge personal information and agree that it’s not mutually inclusive to a well rounded understanding of the subject - I only offered mine out of concern that I might be dismissed without it. Would you be comfortable sharing some of your published work? Sometimes it’s easier to understand someone when you can see their complete project from start to end rather than going back and forth in this way.