|
Hexmage-SA posted:how do you know their own subjective experiences won't lead them to develop alternative explanations and viewpoints that in-places contradict or bowdlerize the parent movement? Why is this bad? Is there something sacred about the subaltern experience? e. Parse what you just said. "How can you be sure they'll unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Dec 28, 2016 |
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:24 |
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Also the real woman thing borrows that same language, but like... I'm not going to criticize a trans woman for how she perceives herself, even if I disagree, because I am not a trans woman. It's okay to call someone on their bullshit, even if they are of a marginalized group. "Personal truth" is just another way of saying "opinion".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
I would agree if they had said "I will never feel like a real woman" or if Ben Carson said "I do not feel as though I have suffered from racism". However, stating that they never will be a real woman, or that they have never have experienced racism, are truth claims about the wider world, not their interior life, and are therefore fair game.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
In university, my roommates and I couldn't get an equitable distribution of housework until we made a literal chore wheel and put everyone's names on a white board with their responsibilities. Entrenched misogyny does not explain why four men couldn't clean a bathroom without such childish measures, but they worked. Sometimes poo poo needs to be spelled out like that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I wonder if there might possibly have been a difference in your four-man relationship that might separate it from a male-female cohabitation relationship.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Are we at this stop on the "goon gets asked to learn new thing" temper tantrum train already? What am I being asked to learn?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
If it works, why not? What kind of bizarre marriage are you party to where it's incumbent on you to perpetually anticipate whatever your partner wants instead of just hashing it out openly like mature adults?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
rscott posted:The more I'm thinking about it, I think it actually does. All the roommates I've had that have been dudes have been slobs. I'm not exactly a neat freak but I live alone because I couldn't deal with having a place that I couldn't bring peole home to because it was trashed. All the same the chores I do to keep things clean are done begrudgingly at best because it really isn't something I think is worth my time, even if that time is probably spent doing something completely unproductive. It's an idea I never considered before. I can see it being sexist if you are simultaneously a slob and you expect your living area to be clean. If you're just a slob and you don't care either way, but your female partner does, then maybe you're a jerk but it's a goddamned far cry from misogyny.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How... else do you treat people you love? Do your best, and when that fails, use your words?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Actually assuming that your lack of concern for tidiness overrules her concern for cleanliness is quite systematically misogynist. So any time you disagree with a woman, as a man, you're enacting misogyny? Are you loving insane?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Haha is this your best? Because dude. Dude.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
I don't see a healthy disregard for others' idiosyncrasies as a failure. Just because a woman feels intensely about something does not mean the men in her life are in any way obligated to accommodate it on the merits of her feeling intensity /gender nexus alone. Insofar as they do accommodate, I would hope it's because there are some merits to her demands, or because they care about the emotional well-being of someone they are close to, and not because she's a woman and they're men. Or to put it more succinctly, I don't think a world where gender dictates social interaction is one worth aspiring to.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
So if I'm reading all this right, the real problem is that men aren't socialized as women.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
This all smacks of "it's not the responsibility of the oppressed to educate the oppressor", although more eye-rolly because we're talking about a situation where the Oppressor might not even recognize that there is a problem, and besides, according to some in this thread, women are typically not equipped with the tools to self-advocate and so shouldn't be expected to confront the man with the situation. What's even being argued about right now? I don't think anyone disagrees that men ought to do their fair share of housework. Some in this thread seem to be ascribing conscious malice in their failure to do so, and others seem to expect men to spontaneously achieve enlightenment on the matter because sitting down and hashing out the problem is variously robotic/mothering/exploitative/doomed. We have a concrete goal: teach men to value housework appropriately and to do their fair share. Never mind subjective standards of cleanliness, the issue is ultimately about the division of labor. Okay - what is an actually practicable way to achieve this?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted: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." If the woman does broach the subject and the man is still a dick about it then yeah, fine. But that's a separate thing from saying the woman shouldn't ever have to voice her concerns because it means enacting the emotional labour of tip-toeing around a fragile ego or whatever other jargon-laden catastrophe you want to imagine.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Differing standards only seem like an issue if they apply to individual responsibilities. In the above scenario, you could make as valid a case that her standards are too high as his are too low. If he expects to live above his standards by exploiting her labor, because women clean and that's just what they do, then that's The Patriarchy rearing it's head. If he doesn't care and doesn't understand why she does, and is unwilling to change his behavior for her, then that's just a human being an rear end in a top hat. Turning it into a Feminist Issue seems like a half-baked undergrad thesis.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Because there is absolutely no trend split along gender lines in this issue, therefore it is entirely a human issue and I don't see why feminists want to whine about it?" "John doesn't care what toppings are on the pizza, but Jane wants pineapple. Let's examine this scenario through a feminist lens."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:It's more that the problem is that if the man has a higher tolerance for a beshitted household, he never cleans - he relies on the woman going He should probably do more just to be a good person and make happy someone he loves, but I don't see the relevance of gender to this scenario except maybe by way of debating whether men are socialized to care too little or women are socialized to care too much.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:20
|
|
and cleaning up first. While this makes sense because some people are filthy slug people, do you think it's fair on the partner with the better hygiene?
|
BarbarianElephant posted:It's more like if John wants pepperoni, Jane wants pineapple, and John always wins because he starts a fight if he loses and Jane knows someone needs to be the one who gives in, and they have both been socialized to believe that the woman gives in by default to keep the peace. Because yes that scenario is hosed up and I'm pretty sure everyone in the thread would agree that John is a patriarchal rear end and his behaviour is deeply informed by sexist socialization. However, I'd still want to know if his tantrums (and her acquiescence) are a function of their male/female relationship or if he pouts and stomps his foot as readily with men as with women. I've met a lot of kindergartners who were equal opportunity offenders.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Any disagreement ever" is exactly the same thing as "there is a distinct trend along gender lines for this issue" yes, that's exactly what I said. I still don't see what a feminist framing brings to the issue except to ask the open-ended, descriptive "why". In a scenario where the man doesn't care whatsoever but the woman does, the only interesting question is "why doesn't he care and why does she?"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:You don't see the benefit of a feminist framing to anything, from what I've seen of you, so perhaps you are not a good person to consult on the matter of what should and should not matter to feminists.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Then why do you even post? Have you considered turning off your monitor? Tiny Brontosaurus posted:And having reached phase three of the "I don't see the problem" "The problem is your fault" "Problems aren't solvable anyway so why are you wasting your time!" cycle the goon burrows into his poo poo-lair to slumber and begin anew. OwlFancier posted:Happily, feminism already provides an answer to that question: "it may well be because there are socialized trends between men and women which encourage different values, and these differences can be and often are combative, in the interests of a better society we should attempt to resolve this conflict, and examine whether these socialized values are productive." stone cold posted:Because of the-to steal a phrase-politics of tedium. It is because of our patriarchal society that socialized girls to help mom clean up and learn how to do incredibly tedious things: dishes, mopping, the shower, the mirrors, vacuuming, taking out the trash, cleaning out and snaking the drains and so on, and teaches boys to help dad do things like: Christmas lights. And because of this, men consistently underestimate the housework load, and have "low cleanliness standards" aka used to the cleaning fairy doing it all.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You don't act like it. Or, in the above scenario, why it's the responsibility of the man to become more cleanly and not the woman to relax her standards. Feminism explains the Darwinian Why of the situation, but how does it uniquely propose to resolve it?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:You are human garbage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I tried this with my slobbish ex. I gave up cleaning for a while and he soon started whinging about how dirty everything was and he couldn't find any clean dishes. Didn't make him clean, though. I don't know why you'd think I'd be mocking the "crazy feminists." Everyone ITT is agreeing on the broad strokes so this thread is basically the narcissism of small differences in action. There is such a think as reasonable disagreement.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You have previously been hostile to the notion that your individual actions are facets of systemic problems but you are going to have to accept that they are if you want to get further in the discussion. What you seem to be saying is that where men and women disagree, women should generally be deferred to -- if not because they are correct in some objective sense, then because the woman deferring to the man reinforces male dominance. I made a blithe comment earlier about how the "real problem is that men aren't socialized as women" and then you write this: quote:Feminism would suggest that expecting women to conform to male preferences reinforces male dominance. It seems absurd. What are the caveats?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
I motion that all men stop being disingenuous assholes vis a vis the fair and equitable distribution of household chores, and within reason, to accommodate their partner's expectations of cleanliness.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:You are the densest, most obstinate, selfish, disingenuous, condescending poster in this thread. You don't get to play Reasonable Moderate OwlFancier posted:There are no caveats. There are situations where you might successfully argue that the disagreement is still legitimate but it still reinforces male dominance, you don't get to say "no it doesn't" because you think the argument is important, it just means that you might think the argument is more important than not reinforcing that. ie. A male rocket scientist says you need rocket fuel to get to the moon, while a woman he's arguing with says you only need water in the fuel tanks, and the preponderence of evidence clearly favours the male's argument but it still reinforces male dominance that he's correct? Would you characterize every interaction between individuals as one of dominance and submission, or is it only so between an obvious Oppressor and an Oppressed?  I'm not being snarky I'm genuinely curious because this outlook seems very weird to me
unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The best thing for humans as a whole would be to drop that idea, and the best way to drop that idea, I think, would be to stop socializing it into people, particularly men, who then demand it of women in order for women to stop being trampled on. I take it you privilege equality of outcome over equality of opportunity.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You will have to expand as I don't know what you are asking.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:There are plenty of positive traits that if you wanted to stereotype as masculine you could. Boldness as mentioned before, bravery and a willingness to risk bodily harm for others safety would be another. However females can and do embody these traits so I think trying to say we should socialize people towards any gender stereotype is shortsighted. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
At least in terms of the thread topic, treating women and women's bodies as accessories seems far more pervasive and toxic than the exchange of sex for money. We still treat the pursuit of women as similar to the pursuit of wealth. Its a common trope in media that a character's wealth is reflected as much in their access to beautiful women as it is in nice cars or conspicuous consumption, with it being extra egregious in rags to riches stories. I don't know how deleterious an effect it has on any given man (or woman) but I would be curious to see a culture where increased wealth is conceived of as enabling, say, greater family stability or a greater capacity to provide for loved ones, and not with a greater capacity to consume goods and people.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Yes, disingenuous, because whether it is or isn't is irrelevant to the fact that you weren't talking about it and don't give a poo poo, and being smugly condescending while you pretend to be a moron seems more likely to convince people that you actually are than... whatever it is you're trying to accomplish here. The last thread was derailed by second guessing people's motivations and assuming everyone was a lovely troll. Can we give people more a benefit of the doubt this time around?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:24 |
|
|
the white hand posted:In many cases they are the same thing. Yes, definitely.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:58
|
|