I’d be surprised if it came from anything more scientific that a Reddit post. The notion that women, in general, got mad at men, in general, for not doing it right, in general, is ludicrous.
I’m an old lady, and my husband, as well as all the other men I know, are perfectly competent at housework.
I think the point several people in this thread have been trying to make is the “other people” sometimes have a skewed perception.
The notion that women, in general, getting mad at men, in general, for no reason in particular seems to be fairly common, across cultures, going back to the beginning of recorded history.
“You know what this party needs? More dudes.”
– No one ever
Women produce children. Men don’t. So historically, most cultures are going to default to sending the bigger and stronger men to do all the dangerous stuff while valuing the women to produce more offspring. Unless you’re like China and are all like “we got enough people now, thanks!”
The secret to a happy marriage is simple:
I don’t try to control her life.
I don’t try to control my life.
Women have been getting mad at men since the beginning of recorded history, true. Whether or not it is “for no reason in particular” is open to debate. Just because one party to a dispute doesn’t understand why the other party is angry at them, that doesn’t mean that the other party doesn’t have a reason.
Let’s avoid drifting into “women be trippin,’ amirite?” territory. As a general rule, I’ve not found women getting mad at me for no reason. Mrs. Odesio has some quirks, but she’s intelligent, caring, and an all around good person who loves me. I cant imagine life without her at this point.
Sometimes they have a valid reason. Sometimes they don’t.
Certainly doesn’t sound equal assuming “oh the man must have done something wrong”.
Valid to you, or valid to her?
On a personal note, there’s no downside to erring on the side of cleanliness, and no need to fight about it. Learn new skills, new timetables, and live in a cleaner abode. Win-win.
I think @JohnT 's post was in response to a discussion about housework. It struck me as rather one sided that the work should be equally shared, but that only women get to say how it should be done and to what standard.
There’s also a trope that men should just give in and agree, sometimes expressed as “happy wife, happy life”. It’s hard to tell if that’s meant seriously or in jest (or somewhere in between).
I think that in every partnership there should be compromise and flexibility, respecting what matters to the other person. There are many items in my personal matrimonial partnership that to me seem like small stuff and that my wife cares more about. So for those things I just do it her way. And it makes me happy to have her happy. And there are things she does that I likely don’t even notice because she knows I care about those specific things, quirks that she enables.
We love our spouses, we want them to be happy, at least not aggravated … of course do the small stuff that facilitates that. So I leave the seat down, I wash toothpaste down the sink, whatevs.
Another relevant issue in the “fridging” context is that often the “fridged” woman is nearly, or actually, the only significant female character. Compare that to, say, Star Trek TOS where yes, most of the “disposable” redshirt characters were male, but also the three leads were male, and most of the secondary characters were male. None of them were treated as disposable: their continued existence was absolutely integral to the series.
So nah, I don’t really buy the notion that in fiction “men are often seen as more disposable”. Except to the extent that men are often treated as the “default human beings” characters: as in, a random character is unthinkingly assumed to be male unless there’s some specific cultural or plot-related reason for them to be female. The people who are on the screen actually doing stuff, having spoken dialogue, having positions of authority, etc., are overwhelmingly more likely to be male. Consequently, the identifiable individuals who get deep-sixed by on-screen villainy or catastrophe for the sake of dramatic excitement are more likely to be male, too.
Wasted time and effort is an obvious one.
Noting that traditionally, producing offspring has been pretty high on the list of “dangerous stuff”. In 17th- and 18th-century America, for instance, a woman had about a 1-in-8 chance of dying in childbirth (or of other maternity-related causes like puerpal fever) during her reproductive years.
? Says who? There are certainly cultural stereotypes of certain things that women “in general” get mad at men “in general” about, and vice versa.
And it’s a very common cliche that men often don’t understand what women are mad at them about. “What’s wrong, honey?” “Oh, like you don’t know. 
” “But I don’t know!! 
” Etc. etc.
But I’m not aware of some kind of longstanding cross-cultural trope that women just spontaneously get mad at men for no reason whatsoever. Like, just suddenly getting seized by free-floating anti-male rage with absolutely no specific proximate cause that she considers to have provoked that rage? No, that’s not a thing.
Certainly there are differences among individual women.
I have ex-girlfriends who were prone to flying off the handle (and that was a large part of why they’re exes). I often sensed that there was a control element behind it–I was supposed to give in more easily in the future to avoid the tantrums. Invariably they would keep me in the dark about why they were mad at me.
But certainly not all women. I’ve had relationships with women who were honest and straightforward when we had disagreements. Those were keepers.
There’s a fairly tired line of “comedy” about women acting that way every 28 days or so…
Sure, but that’s getting mad for a reason that’s undisclosed and/or unjustifiable, as opposed to getting mad for no reason.
It’s the claim that women just arbitrarily get angry at men “for no reason in particular” that I’m calling out here: I don’t think that happens, as a general thing, and I don’t think there are any prominent cultural stereotypes about its happening.
Also true, but likewise, that’s definitely not getting mad for no reason. Nor is it specifically about getting mad at men.
Sometimes menstruating women have emotional outbursts because of hormone surges, or because of stress due to menstrual pain. Sometimes they get mad because they think a partner is assuming that something else they’re upset about is merely a manifestation of menstruation-related irrationality, and therefore doesn’t need to be taken seriously.
But all of those are definite, particular reasons—perhaps reasons of questionable adequacy in some cases, but reasons nonetheless—for getting mad.
Possibly, but you may also have the cause and effect backwards. Maybe they knew that the show would regularly show crew members in mortal peril; consequently the cast were mostly male because it’s more acceptable to show them being killed.
I think it’s mostly likely that the cast of Star Trek were mostly male because, at the time it was being made, the military was mostly male, and that’s the world the show was trying to depict. I don’t think they dreamed that anyone would be watching it 60 years later, or that we’d be analyzing it by modern standards of fairness and equality. There are probably things in current pop culture (even the 2026 incarnations of Star Trek) that future generations of viewers will think were old-fashioned or even insulting.
Yeah, I think that as a general rule, the disproportionate presence of men among “disposed” minor characters and extras has more to do with the “default human being = man” assumption than with any genuine conviction that men simply matter less. For every male minor character who gets offed by the villain to dismay and enrage the audience, there are at least two or three male major characters whose lives are sedulously guarded by the filmmakers.
Very true.
Measured in screen time, yes, but in numbers, I don’t think that’s true. Someone must have done a census of the number of red shirts killed in Star Trek. Or consider that other bastion of 1960s enlightenment, the James Bond films. At the end of You Only Live Twice, there must have been dozens of men killed (good guys and bad) attacking the hidden volcano base, while the only two we were expected to notice were Bond and Blofeld.
25 red, 10 gold, 8 blue shirts on ST:TOS.