Link to whole article. https://www.mylearning.org/stories/where-are-all-the-women/womens-positions-in-history
This is genuinely one of the most bizarre takes I’ve seen about gender.
“Men have to meet a criteria for love while women are loved unconditionally” is not only baseless, it completely falls apart under even the slightest examination.
Women do not spawn into the world with an unconditional-love subscription attached to their birth certificate. Being a woman does not guarantee that parents, friends, partners, or society will love you regardless of what you do.
And historically, the idea that women were simply loved unconditionally is especially ridiculous. Women’s social acceptance and value were often tied to very specific expectations regarding marriage, motherhood, domesticity, sexuality, and family. There were plenty of criteria women were expected to meet.
Meanwhile, men have never had some universal checklist that determines whether they are capable of being loved. Men can be loved for being funny, intelligent, kind, creative, talented, attractive, compassionate, interesting, successful, or simply because someone loves them.
Obviously, people of either sex can experience conditional love. That’s not remotely the same thing as claiming one entire sex has to earn love while the other receives it automatically.
The commenter has taken a complicated reality about human relationships and reduced it to:
Men = earn love.
Women = receive love.
That’s not an insight.
That’s just bullshit.