Feminism and How I don't Care

[Callisdrun]

See it in nature - it is the hen who sits on eggs, not the cock.

The lioness hunts, while the lion sits around waiting for somebody else to kill him up some dinner.

The female penguin goes in search of food, while the male sits around hugging the egg.

The male seahorse fills his torso with his spawn until such time as they are ready to eject in a cloud of gooey offspring.

I like this game.

Me too, but note that going to any of the species and trying to force it to be the wrong way round is... well... wrong and will not work.
Now, i maintain that for people ,the first (me described) scenario is the natural way

Feel free to support your theory. Good luck finding anthropological (let alone biological) data to back you up.

The "man work, woman stay at home" model is actually a very, very recent invention, and has only actually thrived in relatively rich places. Throughout all of human history, women have always worked, and it has only been a tiny minority of the very very wealthy who have had the luxury of keeping their womenfolks from working.

Still, men did the difficult thing - hunting prey and bringing it home or toiling on the field while women worked on the less difficult tasks

Actually there's increasing evidence that women took part in the hunting as well.

Additionally, after the agricultural revolution, everyone in a farming household generally took part in most of the work, including toiling in the fields.

You keep basing your arguments on outdated and/or discredited ideas.

[Callisdrun]

Me too, but note that going to any of the species and trying to force it to be the wrong way round is... well... wrong and will not work.
Now, i maintain that for people ,the first (me described) scenario is the natural way

You're using the internet and talking about natural supremacy? Come on. I'll bet you take medicine too! What a lightweight.

Of course i do - considering i was born hanged i would be long dead without.
However, we need to fix what doesn't work, not what does

Given that the overwhelming majority of families in my country could not survive on a single income from a male provider, I'd say your way pretty clearly doesn't work.

I said i am fine with both working- i just dislike the man staying at home being sustained by his wife

Why is it fine if a woman does it but lazy if a man does it?

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

How the hell can a job give you an identity? It's a job. You wouldn't go if it didn't get you money.

Speak for yourself -- I can think of a number of jobs that interest me sufficiently that I would do them even if I made no money from it.

[Callisdrun]

How the hell can a job give you an identity? It's a job. You wouldn't go if it didn't get you money.

Speak for yourself -- I can think of a number of jobs that interest me sufficiently that I would do them even if I made no money from it.

My ladyfriend's going into the sciences. She loves the subject and likes researching.

Being a scientist isn't her "whole" identity. But it is an important part of it.

[Callisdrun]

Women's education is different how? Females attended the same schools I did, were in the same classes, did the same assignments. Women have been present in all my college classes, including the upper division ones for my major.

Choice of courses is quite different. As is what women generally choose to learn about - intellectual curiosity for most women does not go in the same directions as men. As anyone who's lived with both male and female students can attest.

My ladyfriend goes to another campus of the same university system I'm enrolled in. Her major is different, but given that, and the fact that she's going for a higher degree than I am, means that she'll probably end up earning more money than I will. The career she's planning on embarking on will probably be at least a significant part of her identity, something she's really interested in rather than "just a job."

How the hell can a job give you an identity? It's a job. You wouldn't go if it didn't get you money.

Posted about the identity thing, but I don't really think that "intellectual curiosity" goes in inherently different directions in men and in women.

Maybe for the specific men and women you lived with, but the ones I know have quite varied interests and fields of study. I have met women who study history, business, biology, physics, mathematics and literature while at the same time knowing men who study music, art, history of art and visual culture, etc., and vice versa. I haven't really found there to be much correlation between gender and field of study.

Between my ladyfriend and myself, she's the one going into hard science, and I'm the one who has studied soft wishy-washy things like music and history.

[Offenheim]

These things don't easily change, but they have changed. Not educating women used to be the intelligent thing to do. Now you'd be a fool. You can create incentive for the change.

What incentive, though? Different situations.

Plus, even today, women's education tends to be quite different to men's, just it's they choose it and not society, so the end result is quite similar. There will, of course, be exceptions. I'd hazard a guess that that's what got Bottle annoyed earlier - the idea that one size fits all when it comes to What Women Do.

No, the government can actually provide incentive. For instance, the nuclear family has deteriorated in Sweden, because the state provides so much of the payment for a child that fathers and mothers don't need to depend on each other. Likewise, disciplining a wife by beating her used to be a common practice, but society has progressed that that use of violent force against a women is severely frowned upon, and the accompanying shame can be enough to halt people. Societal norms are very powerful, and you underestimate them at your peril.

I think other people have attacked you on the women's education, so I don't know about that.

Some people find their identities in their careers.

There are very few careers for which one can do that. The idea in itself sounds like it was promulgated by corporations as yet another swindle and way to make people feel better about all they were giving up for the company.

The "identity" thing may hold true for a doctor or composer, but certainly not the average Joe.

That's not true. In America at least, people are very much defined by their careers. Very often, the first thing that people will ask you is "what do you do?" A lawyer will answer, "lawyer" and he'll very much identify as a lawyer. Each career, each job, has its own unique place in society's view. And it's not just for doctor, it's for near every job. If I'm a construction worker, people will judge me based on that, and I'll likely identify that way. Politicians have an identify. Teachers have an identity. Bartenders have an identity. Teamsters. Firefighter. Police officer. Nurse. Ballerina. Musician. Bookseller. Candlestick maker. Even unemployed can be an identity (even if people hate it). People strongly don't want to be a clerk or an office worker or whatnot, because of the identities that would force on them. Even if they can't articulate it as such, it's often "what would I be perceived as in this line of work."

I've forgotten how this relates to the topic at hand.

[Ryadn]

I took a really awesome Gender & Literature course and came to the same conclusion. I focused my report on it. Even cross dressed for the presentation. It was full of awesome. It's because Masculinity enjoys a position of superiority that it must partially define itself by what it isn't.

At the root of this 'superiority', however, lies a fatal weakness. This weakness being that women can encroach upon what is considered "masculine" while the masculine cannot do likewise if the masculine is defined by being "non feminine." So we've had a lot of female encroachment into male territory without as much of the reverse, because there's still a kind of stigma attached to that which is traditionally feminine. For a man to, say, be a stay at home parent would be considered a step down in this definition of masculinity. So what is considered "masculine" just gets narrower and narrower all the time.

Of course...because "feminine" is inferior and "masculine" is superior, so a woman (or man) who tries to be masculine is trying to move UP in the world. But a man who tries to be "feminine" is (GASP!) trying to move down in the world!

This is why a lot of people don't have a problem with their daughters playing sports or engaging in traditionally masculine activities, but they will flip their shit if their son wants a dolly or asks to wear pink clothes. They know, subconsciously, that feminine=bad. Females, being already inferior by definition, aren't hurt by being feminine, because they're already tainted with femaleness. But males will definitely be hurt if they engage in feminine behaviors, as they will be moving down the ladder.

And thus the difference between being a "ball-busting bull-dyke" and a "pansy cocksucker".

[Ryadn]

My brother isn't gay, as far as I know, and he's not exclusively feminine either. He has always loved cars and trucks and building things. He's always been rough-and-tumble. He gets along better with guys than with girls most of the time. I've always been very sad that he is allowed to have all those interests and traits, but the world won't let him also like nail polish and purple and the movie South Pacific, because he's a boy and Boys Mustn't.

Working as I do with young children, I've had a chance to see this process in action at various stages, and it's always upsetting. Kids come into kindergarten with a lot of socially-influenced gender ideas, it's true, but the point really gets driven home once they start school. I remember talking to some of my kinder girls last year about "boys' hair" and "girls' hair", and most of them accepted that girls could have short hair (probably because there were several kids from India in my class, and it's customary for girls from certain regions to keep short hair in childhood), but they were universally shocked when I said that boys could have long hair, too (except for one whose brother had hair to his butt and was often mistaken for a girl). Just today there was a giggle and exclamation when one of my third-grade boys used pink in his art project. I smash that nonsense right quick, but I'm afraid it's a drop in the sea.

[Ryadn]

These things don't easily change, but they have changed. Not educating women used to be the intelligent thing to do. Now you'd be a fool. You can create incentive for the change.

What incentive, though? Different situations.

Plus, even today, women's education tends to be quite different to men's, just it's they choose it and not society, so the end result is quite similar. There will, of course, be exceptions. I'd hazard a guess that that's what got Bottle annoyed earlier - the idea that one size fits all when it comes to What Women Do.

Some people find their identities in their careers.

There are very few careers for which one can do that. The idea in itself sounds like it was promulgated by corporations as yet another swindle and way to make people feel better about all they were giving up for the company.

The "identity" thing may hold true for a doctor or composer, but certainly not the average Joe.

Absolutely. You could never find personal fulfillment and a sense of self as a teacher, or a salon artist, or an interior decorator, or a chef, or a sports writer, or a therapist or...

[Ryadn]

If you think that women who stay home with the kids are afforded much respect, think again. People may pay lipservice to the value of housewives sometimes, but the reality is that most women are now expected to contribute to their household income AND take care of most of the housework AND take care of most of the childcare, so women who are "merely" housewives get very little respect or recognition.

Fucking word. The last 20 years have been a terse agreement to "let" women have careers, as long as they're perfect wives and mothers and housekeepers TOO. My parents both worked full-time, and I can count on one hand the number of times my father offered to make a meal or clean anything. And my dad is certainly not a misogynist; I believe he's as much a feminist as I am. But he's still conditioned to accept this way of life as natural, and he's totally ignorant to how much grueling and thankless work it is to keep the fridge stocked and the kids clean and the bills paid on time. He grew up with a mother who worked full-time and raised five kids---it's normal to him. These are the assumptions we NEED to challenge.

[Ryadn]

Me too, but note that going to any of the species and trying to force it to be the wrong way round is... well... wrong and will not work.
Now, i maintain that for people ,the first (me described) scenario is the natural way

You're using the internet and talking about natural supremacy? Come on. I'll bet you take medicine too! What a lightweight.

Of course i do - considering i was born hanged i would be long dead without.
However, we need to fix what doesn't work, not what does

If it worked, why are we having this discussion? Evidently many people feel it does not. What grounds for criteria do you have that this system works well?

It would work if women just shut up about it. Like apartheid.

[Bottle]

How the hell can a job give you an identity? It's a job. You wouldn't go if it didn't get you money.

Speak for yourself -- I can think of a number of jobs that interest me sufficiently that I would do them even if I made no money from it.

My ladyfriend's going into the sciences. She loves the subject and likes researching.

Being a scientist isn't her "whole" identity. But it is an important part of it.

If somebody asked me to sum up who I am in a single sentence, you better believe "scientist" would appear somewhere in that sentence. Hell, the reason that my thesis work has been such a nightmare is because so much of my identity is tied in to my work...walking away from my thesis would mean walking away from a part of who I am, which is a lot more serious to me than simply leaving a job!

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

It would work if women just shut up about it. Like apartheid.

But wouldn't the world be so much more peaceful if women were seen and not heard? Ah, blissful silence....

*ducks

[Bottle]

Me too, but note that going to any of the species and trying to force it to be the wrong way round is... well... wrong and will not work.
Now, i maintain that for people ,the first (me described) scenario is the natural way

You're using the internet and talking about natural supremacy? Come on. I'll bet you take medicine too! What a lightweight.

Of course i do - considering i was born hanged i would be long dead without.
However, we need to fix what doesn't work, not what does

Given that the overwhelming majority of families in my country could not survive on a single income from a male provider, I'd say your way pretty clearly doesn't work.

I said i am fine with both working- i just dislike the man staying at home being sustained by his wife

Why is it fine if a woman does it but lazy if a man does it?

Because men are superior to women. He won't say it that clearly, but that's the reason. Men are better than women, which is why men must be held to a higher standard than women. A man who "merely" does as much work as a woman is weak and shameful, while a woman who does that level of work is simply doing the best she can, poor dear, because she's handicapped by her femaleness.

[Catnip Addicted Cats]

Me too, but note that going to any of the species and trying to force it to be the wrong way round is... well... wrong and will not work.
Now, i maintain that for people ,the first (me described) scenario is the natural way

You're using the internet and talking about natural supremacy? Come on. I'll bet you take medicine too! What a lightweight.

Of course i do - considering i was born hanged i would be long dead without.
However, we need to fix what doesn't work, not what does

Given that the overwhelming majority of families in my country could not survive on a single income from a male provider, I'd say your way pretty clearly doesn't work.

I said i am fine with both working- i just dislike the man staying at home being sustained by his wife

Why is it fine if a woman does it but lazy if a man does it?

Because men are superior to women. He won't say it that clearly, but that's the reason. Men are better than women, which is why men must be held to a higher standard than women. A man who "merely" does as much work as a woman is weak and shameful, while a woman who does that level of work is simply doing the best she can, poor dear, because she's handicapped by her femaleness.

Yes and no. Men are conditioned to be identified by their professions. The better the profession is, the better the man is. More money/prestige/power = win. More hours/hard work/potential for maiming and death = win. It is their domain, therefore men are held to a higher standard in this arena than women.

However, flip that around - women are held to a higher standard with regard to domestics and child-care. Pat of it is the conditioning that women have for this; part of it is the insane beliefs that a multitude of women have with regard to men and families/children. The beliefs? All men arer deadbeats. All men are incompetent with children. All men cheat on their wives. All men are filthy and disgusting. Of course, any man who isn't any of these things is assumed to be gay.

Look at the media these days - if a woman cheats, she blames her husband. Can a man get away with blaming his wife for his infidelity? Had Tiger Woods said it was Elin's fault he cheated because she wasn't giving it up at home, he would have been tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion. Even so much as checking out another woman is considered cheating - if a man does it. I'm married to a woman who considers me having a professional relationship with another woman to be flirting - and flirting to be cheating. And I'm not alone.

The standard cuts both ways. Frankly, growing up, my parents encouraged me to play girly games and act like a girl - but play football? No-o-o-o. And yes, I'm a dude. And proud of it. I've seen standards, prejudice, and blanket statements cut both ways. It's led me to one conclusion that works for me: People suck.

[Bottle]

Yes and no. Men are conditioned to be identified by their professions. The better the profession is, the better the man is. More money/prestige/power = win. More hours/hard work/potential for maiming and death = win. It is their domain, therefore men are held to a higher standard in this arena than women.

However, flip that around - women are held to a higher standard with regard to domestics and child-care. Pat of it is the conditioning that women have for this;

I'd say 100% of it is due to societal standards; keeping house and family maintained are perceived to be "women's work," and thus women are blamed if anything goes wrong with them, even if the women has a job and works as many hours as her male partner.

part of it is the insane beliefs that a multitude of women have with regard to men and families/children. The beliefs? All men arer deadbeats. All men are incompetent with children. All men cheat on their wives. All men are filthy and disgusting. Of course, any man who isn't any of these things is assumed to be gay.

None of those are attitudes that are exclusive to women. Indeed, the people you will see on this board who argue in favor of those views are almost exclusively male. The people who produce the TV shows, commercials, and magazines which advance those stereotypes are also overwhelmingly male. This is because of that classic adage: the less you appear to know, the less you will be asked to do. As long as men maintain the view that they are not capable of things like changing the baby, cleaning up after themselves, or refraining from cheating, then it will be acceptable for them to shirk those responsibilities.

Look at the media these days - if a woman cheats, she blames her husband. Can a man get away with blaming his wife for his infidelity?

He doesn't have to. In my culture, the very first reaction by the public is to ask what the wife did that "drove" her husband to cheat, or what she failed to do to "keep her man." Like you said above, the stereotype is that all men are dogs, and it is up to women to tame those dogs. A woman who fails to tame her man by providing for his every need and want is the one held responsible if he gives in to his natural urges...after all, he can't be blamed, because he's just a man and everyone knows that men can't control themselves!

Had Tiger Woods said it was Elin's fault he cheated because she wasn't giving it up at home, he would have been tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion.

Again, he didn't have to blame her, because the blaming was done for him.

http://celebs.gather.com/viewArticle.ac ... 4978168272
http://www.celebjihad.com/celeb-jihad/t ... or-affairs
http://www.yourtango.com/200949693/why- ... r-explains

Even so much as checking out another woman is considered cheating - if a man does it. I'm married to a woman who considers me having a professional relationship with another woman to be flirting - and flirting to be cheating. And I'm not alone.

Cheating is determined by each individual couple. If you chose to marry somebody who doesn't want you to look at members of the opposite sex then that's your business, and your poor relationship choices don't really make for a convincing argument for why anybody should trust your assessment of this subject.

The standard cuts both ways. Frankly, growing up, my parents encouraged me to play girly games and act like a girl - but play football? No-o-o-o. And yes, I'm a dude. And proud of it. I've seen standards, prejudice, and blanket statements cut both ways. It's led me to one conclusion that works for me: People suck.

If you feel like sharing more specifics so that we can have the slightest idea what you're talking about, then do so. But otherwise this just reads like your list of personal resentments, and doesn't really have any bearing on what is being discussed.

[Callisdrun]

How the hell can a job give you an identity? It's a job. You wouldn't go if it didn't get you money.

Speak for yourself -- I can think of a number of jobs that interest me sufficiently that I would do them even if I made no money from it.

My ladyfriend's going into the sciences. She loves the subject and likes researching.

Being a scientist isn't her "whole" identity. But it is an important part of it.

If somebody asked me to sum up who I am in a single sentence, you better believe "scientist" would appear somewhere in that sentence. Hell, the reason that my thesis work has been such a nightmare is because so much of my identity is tied in to my work...walking away from my thesis would mean walking away from a part of who I am, which is a lot more serious to me than simply leaving a job!

Seriously. My ladyfriend will probably end up being paid pretty decently in her career, but the main reason she's going into her field is because she loves it and finds plant biology fascinating.

[Callisdrun]

Me too, but note that going to any of the species and trying to force it to be the wrong way round is... well... wrong and will not work.
Now, i maintain that for people ,the first (me described) scenario is the natural way

You're using the internet and talking about natural supremacy? Come on. I'll bet you take medicine too! What a lightweight.

Of course i do - considering i was born hanged i would be long dead without.
However, we need to fix what doesn't work, not what does

Given that the overwhelming majority of families in my country could not survive on a single income from a male provider, I'd say your way pretty clearly doesn't work.

I said i am fine with both working- i just dislike the man staying at home being sustained by his wife

Why is it fine if a woman does it but lazy if a man does it?

Because men are superior to women. He won't say it that clearly, but that's the reason. Men are better than women, which is why men must be held to a higher standard than women. A man who "merely" does as much work as a woman is weak and shameful, while a woman who does that level of work is simply doing the best she can, poor dear, because she's handicapped by her femaleness.

Yes and no. Men are conditioned to be identified by their professions. The better the profession is, the better the man is. More money/prestige/power = win. More hours/hard work/potential for maiming and death = win. It is their domain, therefore men are held to a higher standard in this arena than women.

However, flip that around - women are held to a higher standard with regard to domestics and child-care. Pat of it is the conditioning that women have for this; part of it is the insane beliefs that a multitude of women have with regard to men and families/children. The beliefs? All men arer deadbeats. All men are incompetent with children. All men cheat on their wives. All men are filthy and disgusting. Of course, any man who isn't any of these things is assumed to be gay.

Look at the media these days - if a woman cheats, she blames her husband. Can a man get away with blaming his wife for his infidelity? Had Tiger Woods said it was Elin's fault he cheated because she wasn't giving it up at home, he would have been tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion. Even so much as checking out another woman is considered cheating - if a man does it. I'm married to a woman who considers me having a professional relationship with another woman to be flirting - and flirting to be cheating. And I'm not alone.

The standard cuts both ways. Frankly, growing up, my parents encouraged me to play girly games and act like a girl - but play football? No-o-o-o. And yes, I'm a dude. And proud of it. I've seen standards, prejudice, and blanket statements cut both ways. It's led me to one conclusion that works for me: People suck.

Your wife seems to have odd ideas about what constitutes cheating. My ladyfriend and I are pretty open about the fact that we find other people attractive, and sometimes will have conversations about various hot people we've seen.

[Callisdrun]

Me too, but note that going to any of the species and trying to force it to be the wrong way round is... well... wrong and will not work.
Now, i maintain that for people ,the first (me described) scenario is the natural way

You're using the internet and talking about natural supremacy? Come on. I'll bet you take medicine too! What a lightweight.

Of course i do - considering i was born hanged i would be long dead without.
However, we need to fix what doesn't work, not what does

Given that the overwhelming majority of families in my country could not survive on a single income from a male provider, I'd say your way pretty clearly doesn't work.

I said i am fine with both working- i just dislike the man staying at home being sustained by his wife

Why is it fine if a woman does it but lazy if a man does it?

Because men are superior to women. He won't say it that clearly, but that's the reason. Men are better than women, which is why men must be held to a higher standard than women. A man who "merely" does as much work as a woman is weak and shameful, while a woman who does that level of work is simply doing the best she can, poor dear, because she's handicapped by her femaleness.

Yes, I was trying to get him to come right out with it. Because otherwise his position that "woman who stays home = fine, man who stays home = lazy" makes no sense.

Apparently cleaning the house, cooking food, grocery planning and shopping, taking care of kids and such are only actual work if it's a woman doing it.

Trying to change these cultural assumptions and double-standards is, however, in my own self-interest, as my chances for being at least to some degree a househusband are rather high.

[Tokos]

Different standards are not in themselves wrong; it all depends on context.

[Iyndolen]

Different standards are not in themselves wrong; it all depends on context.

No, it's pretty much categorically 100% completely wrong.

Look, I agree that many of the Feminist you hear are well stupid, but then most of any group you hear from is stupid, like the people on race debates who's the loudest? Why the KKK. Simply put you can't bank on what makes it into books or television or even the internet their all paid to drum up controversy.

[Treznor]

Different standards are not in themselves wrong; it all depends on context.

Then why don't you give us some examples of different standards that are not, in themselves, wrong depending on context? Because if you try to tell us that women who are compensated less for doing the same work (and same quality of work) than men isn't necessarily a bad thing, then you're going to get laughed at pretty mercilessly.

[East Fancainia]

Equal rights for both genders is needed; unfortunately, many feminists want superior rights for women...

^This, it's just this the entire freaking time they try to tell you something. I really don't care either anyway, I find people who are quite annoying. Also, it looks like someone called on the evil feminist!

[Bottle]

Different standards are not in themselves wrong; it all depends on context.

Like how it's fine to hold black people to different standards than whites purely because of their race, right?

[Bottle]

Equal rights for both genders is needed; unfortunately, many feminists want superior rights for women...

^This, it's just this the entire freaking time they try to tell you something. I really don't care either anyway, I find people who are quite annoying. Also, it looks like someone called on the evil feminist!

Still waiting for somebody to post a single example of "feminists wanting superior rights for women."