|
I think that post/article about housework was 50/50, from the standpoint of actually making a fairer home. The implicit assumption is that the reason the work isn't been done is malice, and that, rather than listening to your partner, you have to go through an elaborate 'decoding' ritual, where you replace what they say with what you think they're saying. Sometimes the problem is just a lack of perspective & understanding, in fact that's probably what the problem is most of the time. The solution? Make a system. Record keeping, objective data. That's literally the first step you do. Not the last resort, the first. Don't be stand-off about it, just do it.
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
The easiest set up is just going to be having a list of chores, which you rotate through who is responsible for what depending on the date. I read 'the politics of housework', it suggests 'timesheets' but only as a kind of last resort. It also presents the problem as entirely stemming from some kind of personal failing of the man, which I don't think is necessarily true, or the best takeaway from the situation. The reason businesses have clear, delineated responsibility is because that leads to less hassle in the long run. Treating a system as something only for 'toddlers' (ie inherently infantilizing) is not constructive, if you're wanting to change people's habits then that's going to take time. What's also not constructive is this assumption you have of my sexism, that's just not true. I take all prejudice seriously, because it leads to a lot of suffering in this world, and i don't like being accused of it out of the blue.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:It's not an "assumption," rudatron, it's repeated observation. You are consistently, doggedly terrible about all forms of humanity except white men. You are a horrible person and anyone listening to you will become a worse human being. OwlFancier posted:The reason businesses have clear delineated responsibility is because you are not realistically expected to like or care about your employer and they need to know what you have done and who to blame if it is not done.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
The underlying philosophical difference here should probably be noted: the position being put forward is that men aren't doing housework because of some kind of personal failing, which is either expressed as a disregard for the welfare of their partner (which they're gleefully profiting off), or a combination of arrogance and a superiority complex. I don't think that's a fair or even reasonable explanation, nor is it helpful. The far more likely explanation in my mind is a lack of perspective, the failure to communicate needs and wants honestly, and a lack of trust. The majority of people do not want to do wrong, but they do not want to feel pressured or judged. That's not something limited to 'men', because of patriarchy of whatever, that's a universal human constant. That basic psychology of human beings needs to be understood, and designed around, in the everyday habits and procedures of your normal waking life, if society is to run smoothly and if you, personally, are to find happiness. Accepting the necessity of these procedures is not 'failing at being an adult', it is not a sign of stupidity, it is accepting what is beyond your control and what is not, and coming to terms with that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
So I think it's really funny that my clear, concise, precise and intellectual post that described the underlying problem here was completely ignored, but the fly-in-fly-out guy talking about Women-Biologically-Love-Alphas, as if such biological determinism was some kind of stunning new idea that had never been reasoned about or encountered before, gets like 5 people quoting it. Just to repeat that point I made, because apparently it needs to be made again: if your conception of the problem assumes that, in the majority of cases, the root of the problem is based on 'attitude', then you are poo poo out of luck, because 'attitude' is a property of one's character, and you cannot loving change someone else's character. Don't think you can, you can't, only they can. But you know what you can change? Habits. Expectations. Perspective. The exact poo poo I was referring to in my very first post, to which the reaction of this thread was to flip the gently caress out. Hell, FactsAreUseless, you own experience vindicates my point. You may not have had to use a schedule, but you changed your expectations. Guess what? That's not going to work for everyone. Sometimes, you might just need a system. If you don't, good for you, but don't feel bad if you need it. Because here's the truth: everyone is flawed. If you're in a relationship with actual human beings, you will have to deal with their flaws, as they deal with yours. If you think the process of 'managing' the other person's flaws is 'beneath you' (oh, why should I mother them!), then every single loving relationship you get into is destined to crash and burn around you, because you couldn't compromise. If the other person has the kind of flaws that you cannot manage, you sever. If the other person has a terrible character, a legitimate problem of attitude, you sever. If there is actually something there, some potential to it, maybe assuming that the only reason your partner is 'loving up' is because they 'hate you' isn't the best starting point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
I was accused by tiny brontosaurus of being some Ultimate Bad Guy, so I don't think it's that much of a strawman.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
It's kind of misanthropic that you'd assume that would happen with your partner, but I don't know what kind of people you date the actual solution is: - talk about commitment, the necessity of chores, the burden being placed on you, and the value of one's word - if that fails, threaten to withhold rewards, protest the unfairness, make it clear that this is more than about the The Dishes, but about mutually respecting one another - if that fails, carry through with those threats - if that fails, sever
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
That's not code for 'sex', it means anything that you would give up for their benefit. So, they want to do something, you don't, but you go along anyway because why not.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Good luck with your depression. Procrastination is bad, but you're not alone in dealing with it. Don't feel guilty, just work through it, you know? You deserve to be happy.Tesseraction posted:I think he's just more surprised by the puppy-training strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Eimi posted:Thanks and I am in therapy it just doesn't feel like it's doing much. Almost want to see a psychiatrist now to see if I medication can help though I was on a wide does when I was younger to not much effect. If you want to get the best out of therapy, here's some advice - you have to open up, and that takes work (and time). Keep track of your self-talk, take notice of all the little things, and then spill that out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Honestly not a bad idea, you get enough people to do that and you'll make your point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:No, it's useless, because they can go on doing just the housework that it suits them to do, while leaving their mess all over your own stuff. A Buttery Pastry posted:I don't think you can completely ignore standards of cleanliness. If people's standards are very divergent, the additional work the slobbier party has to put in can go beyond what they'd have to do if they didn't have someone to "share the burden with". At which point they might be feeling like they were getting taken advantaged of despite the burden ostensibly being shared, since the other party just loaded a bunch of poo poo into the shared burden that benefits them alone/far more.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
TB, I am not racist. I am not sexist. I don't like those things. They're bad. How bad? Really bad! Super hurtful. No one deserves to suffer that stuff. Everyone deserves fairness. I was not trying to imply, that only housewives deal with this. I was trying to give an example, to demonstrate my point. I have no doubt, that there are women doing more than is fair, and that this is a widespread problem, and I haven't questioned that. What I did question, is the best way to solve it, and the source of the problem. Now, we can have a discussion about that, and maybe that would be helpful. But, I'm trying to talk in good faith, and I need you to do the same thing. I don't have anything against you, I just don't like being attacked. Okay?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Nobody on either side is saying this. Nearly all of the discussion, contentious as it might be, has been on the best way to address the issue.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Attitudes are a consequence of underlying beliefs and ideas, they aren't "unfixable." Let me put it this way. If I were to say to you, 'you need to fix your attitude!', are you going to interpret that as 'you have some bad habits, and i'd really like you to change them', or 'you have a personality problem, and you have to change it'?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Unless you completely eschew the concept of nurture and believe that humans are preprogrammed with everything they believe from birth, this is a very silly idea. But, if their image is of a person, who wants to help, treats their partner fairly, and holds to their word, you can absolutely change any bad habits they have re:housework. You may have to use a system.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
As long as exploitation is a fact of life, asking people to 'not patronize exploitative industries' is just bullshit though. Guess where the minerals from your smart phone came from? Here, let me spell it out for you: there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. You do your best, but there's no 'right' choice, not really.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
This is a massive topic in itself, and is probably, more than any other reason, the number 1 cause of MRAs existing - men who do not 'fit' within masculine roles overcompensating. But to challenge something here: it's not just that the 'worst thing you can be is a woman'. Effeminate men, are actually seen as worse than women, because you don't have any 'value' attached to you.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
There are plenty of 'luxury' items that are engaged in exploitation, which I can guarantee I could find in your home. And be honest: you don't really need a smart phone. Or, we could just go further: if you have a phone, do you need a computer? Surely you should cut that out of your life, because exploitation. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, the moral burden of exploitation is not on the consumer, but the producer, you cannot and should not shift that burden.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
Well you're morally liable for any abuse you commit, so maybe don't abuse people? But if we're taking this issue seriously, asking people not to buy sex is going to work just as well as asking teenagers to engage in abstinence. Moralism in general just doesn't work, people are people and will do people things.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 05:15
|
|