Dr Ricky Arenson

Recently, I encountered the term “weaponised incompetence,” the idea that men pretend to be incompetent at housework to get out of doing it.

It is true that when I met my wife, she thought that I sometimes acted stupid intentionally. After many years of marriage, she has come to appreciate that not even Robert De Niro is that good an actor! 

The obvious logical response to “weaponised incompetence” is that it if men and women were truly the same, then we would all care equally about housework and husbands would be as motivated as their wives to do it – there’d be no need for nagging. When someone cares deeply about something, they invest in it naturally, because they care. Most men do not need to be nagged to remember to have sex. They might walk over a pile of dirty washing without noticing, but they would definitely become attentive if they walked past a naked wife. This is positive for marriage because many women would feel aggrieved if their husbands were more attracted to unwashed laundry than to them!

Women, having evolved to be “nesters,” are designed to care about domestic upkeep and they are naturally “house proud.” Men who don’t care about housework should do their fair share because they do care about their wives. Marriage is all about sharing priorities and taking care of each other. Doing the things that only we care about is not true love, but selfishness.

Men are not primarily designed to “nest.” While it may be desirable for them to develop domestic skills to support their partners, they do not have the same genetic abilities, having spent millennia hunting and protecting the species. The overnight seismic change in societal fashion, with the demand that men become as capable as women domestically, defies years of genetic and social evolution. The aspiration for men to do their fair share will not magically transform their capabilities, which have evolved for other specialised roles. Aside from the political debate about whether it’s preferable for men to evolve, macro-genetic adaptation is not a quick process. Men don’t do much hunting and fighting these days, so they may need to “move with the times,” if that is what their marriage requires. The distinction is that this should be done according to the needs of each couple, not as a judgemental societal prescription. There may be wives who prefer masculine husbands who are alpha males and sole breadwinners, and that’s not wrong if it makes both partners happy. 

Personally, I have always found that my “weaponised incompetence” has targeted me more than my wife. Firstly, she becomes irritated when I can’t find things in cupboards. I can’t see how this helps me because I like keeping her happy. Besides, it wastes my time because it takes me longer to find things; it’s frustrating. What’s more, it doesn’t discourage her from sending me to fetch things for her!

Despite spending many years looking after young children while my wife was doing her emergency medicine shifts, I always found the task challenging and exhausting. Usually, she would come home at 11 at night and find me having dinner, my first meal of the day. This irritated her and she would ask, quite perplexed, “Why can’t you look after the children and take care of yourself at the same time?” The answer, of course, is that women are designed for this role and have been doing it for thousands of years, whereas men do not have the same genetics. It isn’t about value judgements or politics, but biology.

It is sexist, denigrating, and divisive to propose that men have nothing better to do than to create a massive multi-national conspiracy that teaches boys to pretend from an early age that they can’t find things in cupboards or notice mess lying around. This is aside from the obvious practical difficulties of maintaining the conspiracy. Perhaps men pass this message around by some secret code in a microchip that we keep in our shoes? That’s why we don’t like to buy lots of shoes and prefer to wear one pair, the one with the microchip! Besides, many men have better things to do than work on finding new ways to irritate their wives. We have a natural talent for this without being creative, but it’s an impediment to marital happiness and more frequent sex, so not something we wish to do intentionally.

Besides, if men are so villainous by nature, and men and women are “the same,” then we must presume that women just pretend that they are not able to undo jars and pick up heavy suitcases… or perhaps we could all help and love each other instead of being resentful and seeing the worst in others?

“Weaponised incompetence” is a sexist term against men

Recently, I encountered the term “weaponised incompetence,” the idea that men pretend to be incompetent at housework to get out of doing it.

It is true that when I met my wife, she thought that I sometimes acted stupid intentionally. After many years of marriage, she has come to appreciate that not even Robert De Niro is that good an actor! 

The obvious logical response to “weaponised incompetence” is that it if men and women were truly the same, then we would all care equally about housework and husbands would be as motivated as their wives to do it – there’d be no need for nagging. When someone cares deeply about something, they invest in it naturally, because they care. Most men do not need to be nagged to remember to have sex. They might walk over a pile of dirty washing without noticing, but they would definitely become attentive if they walked past a naked wife. This is positive for marriage because many women would feel aggrieved if their husbands were more attracted to unwashed laundry than to them!

Women, having evolved to be “nesters,” are designed to care about domestic upkeep and they are naturally “house proud.” Men who don’t care about housework should do their fair share because they do care about their wives. Marriage is all about sharing priorities and taking care of each other. Doing the things that only we care about is not true love, but selfishness.

Men are not primarily designed to “nest.” While it may be desirable for them to develop domestic skills to support their partners, they do not have the same genetic abilities, having spent millennia hunting and protecting the species. The overnight seismic change in societal fashion, with the demand that men become as capable as women domestically, defies years of genetic and social evolution. The aspiration for men to do their fair share will not magically transform their capabilities, which have evolved for other specialised roles. Aside from the political debate about whether it’s preferable for men to evolve, macro-genetic adaptation is not a quick process. Men don’t do much hunting and fighting these days, so they may need to “move with the times,” if that is what their marriage requires. The distinction is that this should be done according to the needs of each couple, not as a judgemental societal prescription. There may be wives who prefer masculine husbands who are alpha males and sole breadwinners, and that’s not wrong if it makes both partners happy. 

Personally, I have always found that my “weaponised incompetence” has targeted me more than my wife. Firstly, she becomes irritated when I can’t find things in cupboards. I can’t see how this helps me because I like keeping her happy. Besides, it wastes my time because it takes me longer to find things; it’s frustrating. What’s more, it doesn’t discourage her from sending me to fetch things for her!

Despite spending many years looking after young children while my wife was doing her emergency medicine shifts, I always found the task challenging and exhausting. Usually, she would come home at 11 at night and find me having dinner, my first meal of the day. This irritated her and she would ask, quite perplexed, “Why can’t you look after the children and take care of yourself at the same time?” The answer, of course, is that women are designed for this role and have been doing it for thousands of years, whereas men do not have the same genetics. It isn’t about value judgements or politics, but biology.

It is sexist, denigrating, and divisive to propose that men have nothing better to do than to create a massive multi-national conspiracy that teaches boys to pretend from an early age that they can’t find things in cupboards or notice mess lying around. This is aside from the obvious practical difficulties of maintaining the conspiracy. Perhaps men pass this message around by some secret code in a microchip that we keep in our shoes? That’s why we don’t like to buy lots of shoes and prefer to wear one pair, the one with the microchip! Besides, many men have better things to do than work on finding new ways to irritate their wives. We have a natural talent for this without being creative, but it’s an impediment to marital happiness and more frequent sex, so not something we wish to do intentionally.

Besides, if men are so villainous by nature, and men and women are “the same,” then we must presume that women just pretend that they are not able to undo jars and pick up heavy suitcases… or perhaps we could all help and love each other instead of being resentful and seeing the worst in others?