|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Do you think FAU started this thread to help specific individual relationships divvy up the chore chart? How many more versions of "let's say the problem doesn't happen. would you say there's a problem then?" are people going to post in here? Do you think I'm going to hiss my forked straw-feminist tongue at the men who are actually not being lazy sexist assholes just because? Sorry I continue to discuss a way the patriarchy affects men in the thread about how the patriarchy affects men. But you say things like this Tiny Brontosaurus posted:If the woman's the one who started the cleaning conversation and did the mental labor of thinking up what chores need to be done, and the emotional labor of handling manly-man's fragile feelings about the horrible torture of being expected to do chores then yes she very much did. And I'm just trying to sort out where the expectations line is drawn. If my wife doesn't tell me what her expectations of the state of the home are I might have different expectations that don't meet hers, and vice versa. I understand your concerns about how sexism, even though this can happen between any two partners in any direction regardless of sex, can lead to situations where the woman ends up having to do everything or be the one responsible for keeping track of everything, but at some point these differences in expectations have to be communicated and I'm not clear on how since every answer someone has suggested seems to be wrong. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:If a man comes up with a list of chores and then does them, congratulations, he has achieved minimum basic adult competency. But if his list is different from his wife's we're right back to women doing more than their fair share. FAU- it seems unfair to attack someone for responding to a comment you made about them.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
rscott posted:It's not something I really pay attention to because I enjoy cooking and I clean up after myself while I'm doing it
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
rscott posted:It's not something I really pay attention to because I enjoy cooking and I clean up after myself while I'm doing it Which is fine, I do also, but in the context of someone who cooks for others whether they want to or not, you require an awareness of how much work is involved, it may not necessarily be fun for everyone, and it's not OK to expect other people to like to do for others what you do for yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
rscott posted:I've been doing all the household chores in the places I've lived since I was eight years old, again you are tilting at windmills Also, this isn't a case by case study where we ferret out which forums users are the good and which are the bad. This is a conversation about the overlying issue of boys being brought up in a society that lets them feel that chores are not their purview and how when a man and a woman are in a relationship the lion's share of household chores are done by the woman. Of course there are exceptions because we are humans and humans are individuals who are different. No one cares how good you are at doing chores, guys!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Seriously, though? I'm great at doing chores. Because of my penis. My powerful penis and cis-balls make me a strong chore-performer, and seeing people question that does NOT make me cry, not even a small amount.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
That's not a fair reading. Environmental factors can change people's opinions, and lead them to change themselves - but you are not just another part of the environment, you are a person, with intent, and other people will recognize that. If they believe that you are attempting to 'control' them, in that manner, they will reject you. They must come to change themselves, using their own faculties. They must travel that path, alone. You can only offer to help, if they want your help.Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Saying a behavior that most men do is something that makes men unfit for relationships is saying women can't be in relationships with men. But, if you believe that they will not, if you truly believe that the majority of men do what you say they do, honestly, then yes. If that is your honest belief, you are compelled by the logic of that belief to never enter into a relationship with a men, and you must leave any you have now, because by your own logic, women cannot be in relationships with men, because men are unfit for relationships. rudatron fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But, if you believe that they will not, if you truly believe that te majority of men do what you say they do, honestly, then yes. If that is your honest belief you are compelled by the logic of that belief to never enter into a relationship with a men, and you must leave any you have now, because by your own logic, women cannot be in relationships with men. If anyone thinks I'm being too aggressive, PM me about me. Furthermore: [fart noise]
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yes what IF problems didn't exist. rscott posted:It's not something I really pay attention to because I enjoy cooking and I clean up after myself while I'm doing it
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But, if you believe that they will not, if you truly believe that the majority of men do what you say they do, honestly, then yes. If that is your honest belief, you are compelled by the logic of that belief to never enter into a relationship with a men, and you must leave any you have now, because by your own logic, women cannot be in relationships with men, because men are unfit for relationships. what that is by far the dumbest thing I've read in a while. you realize that behaviours can be changed, yes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
And the whole point I brought up in my post in the feminism thread which was copied over to the OP is - when household labor is studied, researchers consistently find that men overestimate how much they contribute by a wide margin. A man saying he does "most of this" or "all of that" is actually a reliable indicator that he does far less than half the work in the home. Men respond to this by arguing that the chores they aren't doing don't really exist or don't really need to be done, or can't be done by them because excuse excuse excuse. So much of the work women do men don't even recognize as work at all. Who remembers birthdays and picks out gifts? Who stays home from work when a repairman has to be let in? Who soothes the bad moods? Who makes sure people are carrying everything they need when they walk out the door in the morning? When someone has a health issue, who schedules the doctor appointments, goes to the pharmacy, studies and manages the care plan? The answer should be "both of us" and if it is that's great, basic human decency achieved. But it frequently isn't, and treating those all as individual special cases is just avoiding confronting a problem. Aren't men supposed to be good at confrontation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:It's also pretty much the worst possible response. "Women often have to do way more household chores than men." "Pfft, cooking doesn't even take long." 1) I was quoting a dude 2) I don't claim to be a super awesome cook but most dishes I cook have like a 10-20 minute prep time and a much longer amount of time in the oven or in a pot or the slow cooker, I'm not counting that as time I spend cooking because I'm doing something else in that time. If you spend several hours a night cooking extravagant meals or baking pastries and stuff that's cool but at that point it's more of a hobby than a chore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:If the toxic relationship you're railing against is the only kind we can define as a problem, then great. Guess everyone is fine then, even if the woman ends up doing 80% of the house work because her standards are much higher than the man's. It's not some rare exotic form of "toxic" it's loving universal and you making me repeat this over and over is illustrating the exact problem we're talking about. If this is how many times you need to be told what the topic of a conversation is how many times does it take you to grasp that your dirty socks are on the floor? Years?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless, I have also said that it is a problem that can be solved, but TB denies that that solution could work. We have a different concept of what the source of the problem is. If she is right, if the problem is simply a lack of caring, then nothing will work, and logically, she must not longer associate with men, because they do not care about her. I don't think that is true, but TB believes what she wants to believe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
rudatron posted:That's not a fair reading. Environmental factors can change people's opinions, and lead them to change themselves - but you are not just another part of the environment, you are a person, with intent, and other people will recognize that. If they believe that you are attempting to 'control' them, in that manner, they will reject you. They must come to change themselves, using their own faculties. They must travel that path, alone. You can only offer to help, if they want your help. If they believe that requests to, and explanations of why it is important to, modify their behaviour are attempts to destroy their individuality and control them, they have an overly inflated sense of self importance to begin with. Which I would posit is rather heavily tied into masculine socialization. If you are looking to universalize that concept I think that may reveal a lack of experience with feminine socialization, because a quite consistent point that is brought up in feminist discussions is that women are expected to surrender that individuality and ego to society. Particularly to men. The mindset you are describing is quite precisely a thing that I think feminism should seek to destroy, because there are compelling reasons why it is counterproductive to society in general, not just to male/female equality. Do not make the mistake of believing it to be inherent, it is quite strongly socialized as evidenced by its absence from female socialization. And I think it is hilariously ironic to suggest that feminism should try to make women more like men because men are better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
rudatron posted:FactsAreUseless, I have also said that it is a problem that can be solved, but TB denies that that solution could work. We have a different concept of what the source of the problem is. If she is right, if the problem is simply a lack of caring, then nothing will work, and logically, she must not longer associate with men, because they do not care about her. I don't think that is true, but TB believes what she wants to believe. People can grow and change and learn to care about things they didn't care about before. I posted a link to an essay by a man explaining how he did exactly that. gently caress your robot gimmick and gently caress your bigoted rear end beep-booping its way through every conversation marginalized people ever try to have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:If you were the communication expert you think you are you wouldn't need me to repeat myself so often, would you. If a man is supposed to be doing something and isn't, the problem isn't communication. It is bullshit sexism making you assume that women didn't communicate the problem, that they don't do that constantly, with varying strategies. It is bullshit sexism making you think that a man not doing his share of the work can blame his SO for not asking him clearly enough. Adults don't need to be asked to do their responsibilities, they just do them. Wives and girlfriends are not their SO's mommies. What do you propose as an alternative for men who have already been socialized since birth to devalue housework or take for granted that the women in their lives will pick up their slack? If a man is ignorant but without malice, and is completely not cognizant of their being a problem -- here I'm talking about a clueless but well-meaning partner and not some Al Bundy patriarchal rear end in a top hat -- then how do we go about resolving this issue? Strictly as a matter of necessity, it seems incumbent on some other party, whether or not it's the partner, and whether or not it's unfair or sexist, to bring this issue to the forefront.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Maybe women should not be expected to surrender that individuality? I do not hold that expectation of women, in fact I would encourage them to do the opposite. Nor do I believe that all attempts to modify behavior should be interpreted as destroying individuality, some are obviously positive, but people should want to change that behavior, about themselves, first. I think that's fair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Maybe women should not be expected to surrender that individuality? I do not hold that expectation of women, in fact I would encourage them to do the opposite. Nor do I believe that all attempts to modify behavior should be interpreted as destroying individuality, some are obviously positive, but people should want to change that behavior, about themselves, first. I think that's fair. Maybe men should not be taught that individuality is a god given right. Maybe selfishness is bad. As I said, feminism should not be telling women to act more like men because men are better. You are arguing from a very androcentric point of view.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If they believe that requests to, and explanations of why it is important to, modify their behaviour are attempts to destroy their individuality and control them, they have an overly inflated sense of self importance to begin with. Which I would posit is rather heavily tied into masculine socialization. If you are looking to universalize that concept I think that may reveal a lack of experience with feminine socialization, because a quite consistent point that is brought up in feminist discussions is that women are expected to surrender that individuality and ego to society. Particularly to men.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:If you were the communication expert you think you are you wouldn't need me to repeat myself so often, would you. If a man is supposed to be doing something and isn't, the problem isn't communication. It is bullshit sexism making you assume that women didn't communicate the problem, that they don't do that constantly, with varying strategies. It is bullshit sexism making you think that a man not doing his share of the work can blame his SO for not asking him clearly enough. Adults don't need to be asked to do their responsibilities, they just do them. Wives and girlfriends are not their SO's mommies. Tiny Brontosaurus, as far as I remember this is the first time we've ever spoken. Where is this coming from? I agree that sexist ideology is at fault here, and men should know better and they should do more. To borrow your phrase, what are we supposed to do with this, though? I think concrete communication strategies like, yes, rotas and structured relationship talks are useful and I don't think people do employ them enough - in part because communication skills are loaded with (often sexist) baggage. I could be wrong about this and they might be more common and less effective than I think. If not, though, then I don't think we should pooh-pooh them on the basis that the problem shouldn't exist in the first place. Isn't that what we're trying to solve? "Better communication" certainly isn't the only thing we should do, of course - what other strategies alongside self-reflection would you suggest men can do to address this? Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Saying a behavior that most men do is something that makes men unfit for relationships is saying women can't be in relationships with men. So, hey, look at this neat trick! If a woman is in a relationship with a man who acts like that, it's her fault for putting up with it! Because men can't learn and change. They're much too smart for that. So the specific post there was made in response to a hypothetical scenario in which a man does not respect or care enough about his partner to do his assigned chores and is generally acting in bad faith (i.e. agreeing to a system and then ignoring it). Matthew Fray's wife made the same decision. I don't think that's unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:I don't think an inflated ego is necessarily a gendered problem -- have you ever dealt with an addict or alcoholic? It's very much the same thing, especially at the stage where they're still blaming others for their behaviour or making excuses for their choices. You can hate them and harass them. Or, you can do your best to give them the tools they need to recover, but it's ultimately a matter of them repairing themselves, and not of those around them fixing them. "Gender norms don't exist because I know this one women who acts really masculine" is not an argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:As far as I've read, you haven't actually made a case for this, but let's assume that it is sexist to expect a woman to make clear her expectations in a relationship, or for the man to fail to anticipate her every want. I really don't think TB is trying to say the first part, but it's coming across that way because "making her expectations clear" is being conflated with "making her responsible for nagging the man to get everything done". As far as I can tell. I just want to sort out the balance of those things, but most suggestions for doing so have been shouted down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:As far as I've read, you haven't actually made a case for this, but let's assume that it is sexist to expect a woman to make clear her expectations in a relationship, or for the man to fail to anticipate her every want. Unless you're loving your furniture and cooking utensils it's not an 'expectation' of a relationship to clean your bloody house. Although if you are loving them please clean them after use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Unless you're loving your furniture and cooking utensils it's not an 'expectation' of a relationship to clean your bloody house. He's referring to the woman's expecations of the standard of cleanliness the home will be generally kept to. This is a very individual thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
WRT changing people's attitudes: Solutions need to tell us 3 things. Who's going to act? What are they going to do? Why are they motivated to do it. Drop any of those, and you've got a wish, not a solution. Some behavioral problems can be solved. Communicate. Show the person what they need to do, and how it ties to something they care about. (a fair relationship / a happy partner). Some behavioral problems can be solved. Same process. Apathy, in particular, can't be solved. I can't force someone to care about things. If they don't care, they don't care. I can tell them why I want them to change. But if they don't care, that's not a motivation for them, either. The situation might be their moral fault. But that's an extremely cold comfort.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Please don't distract from what I was actually asking by nitpicking with an uncharitable reading of one sentence, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
No one should be selfish, and individuality should not be confused with selfishness. Nor do I think that these beliefs should necessarily be gendered, in the way you seem to think they are.Tiny Brontosaurus posted:People can grow and change and learn to care about things they didn't care about before. I posted a link to an essay by a man explaining how he did exactly that. gently caress your robot gimmick and gently caress your bigoted rear end beep-booping its way through every conversation marginalized people ever try to have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Apathy, in particular, can't be solved. Entirely untrue, apathy is an absence of understanding as to why it should matter to you, an absence of empathy, and empathy is a learned skill like any other. rudatron posted:No one should be selfish, and individuality should not be confused with selfishness. Nor do I think that these beliefs should necessarily be gendered, in the way you seem to think they are. Is/ought. They are gendered, they should not be gendered because everybody should be taught to put the group before the self, not just women.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:He's referring to the woman's expecations of the standard of cleanliness the home will be generally kept to. This is a very individual thing. Which is true but the issue is that women should be expected to be the arbiter of what is 'clean' and what is a blatant health hazard. Keeping a minimum standard of hygiene should not be this giant divide that the thread has clearly shown it to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
rudatron posted:No one should be selfish, and individuality should not be confused with selfishness. Nor do I think that these beliefs should necessarily be gendered, in the way you seem to think they are. Please turn your dial back to the racism setting, I'm tired of the patronizing sexist one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Gender norms don't exist because I know this one women who acts really masculine" is not an argument. Gender norms definitely exist, sorry if I came across otherwise. I just meant that a desire to protect your ego or sense of self is not a "man" problem, it's a people problem. How the individual actually responds to an attack on their ego/sense of self is the gendered part. I doubt very much women are further along the ego-death spectrum than men, but society definitely does not tolerate them pridefully lashing out in defence of their egos the way it does with men.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Entirely untrue, apathy is an absence of understanding as to why it should matter to you, an absence of empathy, and empathy is a learned skill like any other. Sure. If you go, "You should care more about X because you care about Y," that's perfectly valid. The scenario I'm thinking of is where a couple has communicated. They've agreed to shared, mutually-understood expectations. One partner is consistently failing to meet those expectations. And the partner knows it. But they don't care. That's the apathy I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Which is true but the issue is that women should be expected to be the arbiter of what is 'clean' and what is a blatant health hazard. Keeping a minimum standard of hygiene should not be this giant divide that the thread has clearly shown it to be. I think the implication is that women have a higher standard, and if they want that standard to be met it has to be communicated. I'd be glad to be the arbiter, but my girlfriend would probably end up moving out because her standards are simply higher than mine. So I will attempt to meet her standards, which I could do more easily if they were communicated clearly, but I don't want to put all the responsibility on her to: Tiny Brontosaurus posted:started the cleaning conversation and did the mental labor of thinking up what chores need to be done, and the emotional labor of handling manly-man's fragile feelings about the horrible torture of being expected to do chores Please forgive shifted tenses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Sure. If you go, "You should care more about X because you care about Y," that's perfectly valid. I think that's less apathy and more sociopathy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Please turn your dial back to the racism setting, I'm tired of the patronizing sexist one. Why don't you answer the question asked to you by multiple people in this thread about how solving this problem without one partner communicating to the other that there is a problem can be accomplished? You know, instead of just rage posting at dumb turns of phrase over and over again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:9. The man melts down, calling the woman a nag and having a huge fit, capping it off with "well maybe we're just incompatible if silly things like dishes are going to make you get so mad!" Tiny Brontosaurus posted:What many people, including the loving OP of the thread, are saying, is that this is not an "oddly-specific" problem, it is an incredibly common one. This is the frequent behavior of men who are in adult relationships. This is such common behavior that you and your shithead brodeo can't even imagine a man ever not acting that way. The problem must lie entirely with the women who expect them not to. I don't think that the bold is normal. I definitely don't think you should be normalizing it as acceptable behavior from someone who's ready for a relationship. Men who "melt down" and "have huge fits" are not, in my opinion, ready for relationships. In as far as I have any moral influence, I'd tell them to get therapy rather than date.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Please don't distract from what I was actually asking by nitpicking with an uncharitable reading of one sentence, thanks. Sure: the trump tutelage posted:If a man is ignorant but without malice, and is completely not cognizant of their being a problem -- here I'm talking about a clueless but well-meaning partner and not some Al Bundy patriarchal rear end in a top hat -- then how do we go about resolving this issue? Asking why the woman has to do it? Like if they are just ignorant then it should be a few cogs turning before they reply "oh right" and get on with it? Any other response is basically "because I man."
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:It's not some rare exotic form of "toxic" it's loving universal and you making me repeat this over and over is illustrating the exact problem we're talking about. If this is how many times you need to be told what the topic of a conversation is how many times does it take you to grasp that your dirty socks are on the floor? Years?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I think the implication is that women have a higher standard, and if they want that standard to be met it has to be communicated. I'd be glad to be the arbiter, but my girlfriend would probably end up moving out because her standards are simply higher than mine. So I will attempt to meet her standards, which I could do more easily if they were communicated clearly, but I don't want to put all the responsibility on her to: Or is it already too late?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I think the implication is that women have a higher standard, and if they want that standard to be met it has to be communicated. I'd be glad to be the arbiter, but my girlfriend would probably end up moving out because her standards are simply higher than mine. So I will attempt to meet her standards, which I could do more easily if they were communicated clearly, but I don't want to put all the responsibility on her to: I suppose I don't understand where the difficulty arises... like if you've spent longer than a minute in someone's house you should have a pretty immediate idea how clean they keep things? I may not know their specific brand of soaps but it's obvious surely?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:47
|
|