|
Black Baby Goku posted:So it silences women by bringing up a topic in the feminism thread that doesn't involve women? Are men and women not allowed to discuss issues that may not be from the place of their sex or lived experiences? Just seems silly to me but whatever. Thanks for answering. It may not be, on an individual level, objectionable. However on aggregate, if everybody does that because the discussion group is disproportionately male, it has the effect of drowning out the discussion. It is possible for actions which are individually fine to have not fine outcomes when applied universally. And whether it is intended or not doesn't make it less obstructive, so you attack the effect by creating safe spaces and giving extra weight to numerically smaller voices.
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 07:19 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:Let's consider for a moment, the expectations and ideals we're supposed to fill and aspire to hold. Live as you wish to see others live, that helps. One of the advantages of being a dude is that you have authority and command respect for your position simply by virtue of being a dude. You can be masculinely feminine. You can demonstrate a lot of the feminine traits you desire but combine it with masculine assertiveness and borderline arrogance. It's harder if you want to really range into genderfluidity but I get along well by rejecting the majority of masculinity as antisocial bollocks and adopting traditionally feminine roles and behaviours except for the whole "second to men" bit. Stuff like empathy and a developed emotional mind are extremely valuable to anyone, but especially someone who is otherwise deprived of it by their social role, you can develop and champion that ability as a dude for your own sake as well as because it's a good thing socially. If you raise your kids with that outlook they stand a better chance of accepting it as normal and sensible. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Not to sound heartless but...who cares? All of those sound like things that are either men's own fault, or natural consequences of biological sex differences. Maybe boys just plain aren't as smart as girls? Maybe men don't live as long as women because of innate biological reasons that lifestyle, diet, exercise, healthcare, etc. can only do so much to alleviate? Maybe boys commit suicide more often because they're more emotionally fragile and mentally weaker than girls? Girls have it tougher than boys and yet they don't commit suicide as often. i wonder why that is? If you are arguing that men are inherently disadvantaged then I would think the compassionate thing to do would be to adjust society so that they are not. As I trust you would expect society to adjust so that people who are systemically disadvantaged are not.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:You are right that it would be shouted down instantly, but get this: maybe that isn't a good thing?? It may not be strictly optimal but it is not far off the mark. Discussing inherent differences between the sexes is, in the majority of cases, simply throwing in the towel and saying "well we can't make any changes so let's talk about how we just have to accept XYZ" which I do not consider to be an acceptable concession.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:I agree. Maybe the difference in suicide rates is 100% cultural. Maybe it's 50% cultural and 50% testosterone doing things to people's brains. That assumes the discussion is taking place in a vacuum.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Not really. Though I don't think it would make much difference if it were. If someone wants to argue  they probably aren't doing so from a compassionate position.Shutting down that topic is overwhelmingly shutting down lovely loving people who would not contribute to a desirable solution to the issues they, if we are to assume good faith, are attempting to identify.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Tarantula posted:There's another thing that seems to affect men more than women and that's homelessness, i'm not entirely sure as to why if men on average earn more and hold higher paying jobs? As I understand it one small thread to the tapestry involves mental illness and substance abuse and the way men and the patriarchy deal with it. I think a disproportionate number of homeless people are war vets in some countries.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:This is why I suggested that both the man and the woman work together to come up with a division of labor that both can agree with. That's what I said when you asked who would do the labor of divvying up the housework. Because, yeah, you're right, if the woman just assigns the guy a bunch of chores, that's probably not gonna work out great. You're arguing against something I never said If one partner is having an issue with the other not pulling their weight, then the issue is with the one not doing the work being unwilling to do it, assuming, not unreasonably, that the other has mentioned the issue before this point. Whether you sit down together and write a rota is not really the point, the point is that the one not doing the work is going to have to internalize the need to change, at which point they should be quite willing and able to do their work without getting it signed off and documented. The documentation process is entirely irrelevant to the resolution of the issue.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
rudatron posted: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. 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. The reason you should not follow this model in your personal life is because you should not have the same relationship with your partner as you do with your place of work.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Tarantula posted:So uh thread seems to be nosediving off target perhaps a change of topic is in order. I seem to recall when I was in school it was brought up that because schooling places a lot of emphasis on presentation, boys can often struggle with it because they tend to be socialized to be more concerned with the substance, whereas especially earlier schooling uses form to assess things like ability to write and may often set creative assignments in an attempt to make the work interesting. You can view it as an issue with assessment or as an issue with gendered learning trends, or both.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:just have women reproduce through cloning. It does have its appeal. I suppose I am perhaps being overly charitable in assuming that both partners in the relationship might be actually concerned with the wellbeing of each other and generally a sign of that is being willing to put some effort in? Like, if my other half has to write me a sheet of instructions of things to do in order to get me to pull my weight I'm doing something very very wrong in the relationship.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted: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. 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 04:09
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I think you're way off base in assuming that lack of concern about the relationship or the partner or misogyny is the only reason someone doesn't do their share of the housework. Coming up with an equitable division of chores and writing it down is just good common sense. Otherwise you've got both people just sort of doing whatever, and it's basically guaranteed that they're gonna have different standards of cleanliness. A woman might end up doing all the vacuuming because she thinks you need to vacuum every week and the guy thinks every month, and so he never vacuums just because he always thinks the carpets are fine. That doesn't mean he doesn't care about his wife. Assuming his wife has a tongue and he ears, I would assume that she might mention to him that he doesn't vacuum much. Or perhaps, had he eyes, he might notice that she does quite a lot of it and wonder if perhaps this might be because she likes the house to be that vacuumed. I again grant that I may not have the same concept of a relationship as you but perhaps if you like a person enough to live with them you might engage your brain at some point along that line and ask if perhaps your other half might like you to do the vacuuming this time? Rather than sit in presumed astonishment as they work around you, marvelling because it is not currently the time for vacuuming and yet vacuuming is occuring. the trump tutelage posted:Are you interested in fixing the situation or indulging in righteous indignation? If it resolves the issue then make the chore wheel and pat yourself on the back for making concrete progress. Perhaps treating your marriage the same way you do your job would not actually be a very good solution to anything except the most superficial of symptoms and you could stand to look a little deeper as to why this is necessary? In the context of fostering greater understanding of men for women, it might not be very helpful to suggest we employ methods designed to facilitate work between inherently hostile parties? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:You know what would also solve this problem? Both of the people talking about chores and comping up with an equitable division of labor when they first loving move in together. I think, if that is necessary, then the individual in question has not properly internalized the concept that their other half is equal to them. Or, I suppose, they don't really like them very much, but assuming they do like them and consider them equal then they should just be able to hear "I would like you to do some more work" and say "it's true, I don't do a lot, I will do more from now on" and then do it. Because, again, the person asking is your equal, they have a right not to spend their life picking up after you, you should believe that implicitly and be willing to act to realize it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
the trump tutelage 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? How... else do you treat people you love?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:I can see it being sexist if you are simultaneously a slob and you expect your living area to be clean. Actually assuming that your lack of concern for tidiness overrules her concern for cleanliness is quite systematically misogynist. "It doesn't matter to me, why should I care that it matters to you" is a founding stone of misogyny.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:How so? We could make everyone men, or genderless porpoises and the situation wouldn't really change. Because which part of society do you suppose is favored by that mindset?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:So any time you disagree with a woman, as a man, you're enacting misogyny? Are you loving insane? I'm not sure whether it was this or the other thread that had the helpful post about "personal is political" Your individual actions are not divorced from their societal context. "I don't care, why should I care that you do?" applied systematically, creates outcomes which strongly disfavor groups with less systemic power. You live in a world which favors men very strongly, for all that masculinity also harms men far more than anything else it creates a world where men have primacy, where men who do care about things create systemic solutions to problems that affect men, primarily, because they think about themselves. Self interest helps you and sometimes others in your position. To help people outside your position you require selflessness, you need to care about things other people care about, because they care about them and they are just as valid as you are, as people. While it may not make you feel very good, systemic misogyny is supported by the continuous failure of many, many people to stop thinking "I don't care, why should I care that you do?" And when you think that, you keep holding that edifice up in your own, small way. You cannot escape your participation in systems, only change which way you push in them. Or, more succinctly, saying "I don't care about what you think and don't see why I should" to a woman, as a man, does in fact, perpetuate marginalization of women by men.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
rudatron posted: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. 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. It is possible to expose people to new ideas and have them reformulate their beliefs and behaviours as a result.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
rscott posted:Cooking for two people? Cooking even a fairly simple meal for myself and doing the washing afterwads would probably take an hour if I didn't clean the kitchen, hour and 15 if I did, hour and 30 if we include the stuff you don't clean everyday in the kitchen but need to after a while because it gets dirty through use.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It has nothing to do with nature versus nurture, my friend, it's psychology. People define themselves, they enjoy defining themselves, they do not like others defining them. If you, as another person, try and challenge that fundamental image of selfhood, that conception of themselves that they have cultured and grown, they will absolutely react against you, and they're justified in doing that. If their self-image is of them, as a 'manly-man', who will never do housework, you must leave them. You do not have that ability to change them, not in that way. That seems like a very airy fairy way of saying "yes environmental factors do not affect people and people are all perfect nietzchien ubermensch." I would also suggest that this visceral dislike of any perceived threat to one's individuality is you projecting a bit, because otherwise much of society would not function. I think if you think like that about yourself you might actually be relying very heavily on the people around you not thinking like that in order to mould themselves to fit around your rather inflexible ego. Which, applied across gender lines, is another important component of sexism.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
rscott posted:I have to be drastically underestimating the amount of time I spend on making dinner every night or something, that seems excessive Well there's not very much you can cook from raw ingredients that cooks in less than 30 minutes and even prepping a few ingredients takes a while for each one, and creates mess you need to clean with boards and knives and such. So 30-45 minutes to cook. Washing up is much faster if you have a dishwasher but washing in the bowl takes 10-15 minutes and properly cleaning up your worktops and cooker takes another 10-15, so 20-30 minutes to clean up. And the floor will need mopping occasionally and you have to de-gunk the sink every now and then and buy new cleaning supplies. It's not necessarily work you begrudge doing because it's nice to have a good dinner, but it adds up, especially if you're normally cooking for someone else and they don't help out with the cleanup. If you eat more pre-prepared things and don't do the less frequent cleaning jobs it will take less time. Or I suppose if you don't keep your kitchen sterile but I was raised to do that so I do.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
When you spray piss all over the shitter you should clean it.the trump tutelage posted: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. "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?"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:So any time a man and a woman have a legitimate disagreement, or simply don't see eye to eye, it is necessarily a feminist issue? "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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:I don't think anyone's actually discussing that scenario, as much as a tiny brontosaurus tries to catastrophize every male/female interaction. If he is just generally a big baby about things like that then that is still a feminist issue if that is something that tends to be an issue with men in general.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Sorry for being uncharitable, then. 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." Which, I hope, would lead you to be further interested in assisting with that endeavour.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:I agree with all this. You don't act like it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:I'm still trying to understand why, in the scenario where the man doesn't care (and doesn't expect the woman to care), and maybe isn't even aware of the woman's dissatisfaction, it's not incumbent on the woman to bring the issue to the forefront even if it's unfair or sexist that she has to. To say she doesn't seems like you're privileging being right than actually materially improving the lives. Feminism would suggest that expecting women to conform to male preferences reinforces male dominance. It does not suggest that men should be psychic, but I, personally, would suggest that you should be aware enough to notice if your partner is doing all the work and seek to rectify that without being told, and if you are told, you should do as you are told, rather than assuming your partner is wrong or complaining. Masculine ignorance of women's issues and masculine assumption that women should agree with them are both systemic problems which you, as an individual who is a component of a system, should try to oppose. 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. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:I'm hostile to the idea that all actions are necessarily instantiations of systemic problems. Or, if they are, that they carry moral weight or otherwise implicate the actor as an Oppressor. Though I guess ITT I need to explicitly state that I am not hostile to having my mind changed. 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. Personally I would suggest that everyone should be socialized female because I don't know of any masculine traits that perform outside of dominating others, which i don't consider to be a positive end. But that's somewhat tangential to the argument.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Dividing human traits into feminine and masculine and blanket writing off one or the other is a bad idea in ways I know you're smart enough to see. Eh, it's not really "human traits" as much as specifically the difference in socializing. Not some dumb biotruths bollocks. As in, I see nothing really positive about masculine socializtion, and rather than saying "well we should socialize girls to act more like boys" I would instead say "we should stop socializing boys like loving idiots" I guess instead it would be more accurate to say "I think everyone should be socialized feminine" rather than female. Not because femininity is sort of magically good, but because masculinity overwhelmingly is represented by behaviours centered around dominating people, men, women, everyone and everything. Which I consider unproductive. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Well, this is the men's thread! So I find it interesting. You'll have to tell me, I don't know of any. Essentially all the things like "boldness, assertiveness, strength, ambition" and that rubbish are all centered around basically pulling yourself up over the heads of other people. They're all about social dominance, the desire to be on top, the desire to lead, the desire for power over others, TB puts it well when she says that men always try to lead everything. I think, that the only reason any of those are considered good, is because we live in a masculine dominated world, so having them is what gives you a fighting chance, because lots of other people are also expressing them and competing to express them more completely, to dominate more powerfully than their peers. 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. They also demand it of other men and will abuse them just as willingly. It is those principles which create a society where altruism is abused and selfishness rewarded, which is bad for everybody. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:How do you account for (say) the effects of increased testosterone in men versus women? Could it just as easily be channelled in to "feminine" expression as "masculine"? You will have to expand as I don't know what you are asking.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Testosterone correlates with aggression and competitiveness. In a society that does not socialize for "masculine" traits, do you foresee men successfully channelling their inclination to aggression and competitiveness into feminine traits, or are men simply at a disadvantage? You could always treat excessive testosterone as a medical condition and treat it the same way you would breast cancer, as a condition which disproportionately affects a particular sex. I mean I have no idea what my own testosterone levels are but I think my socialization quite effectively killed my competitiveness and aggression at least well enough that I am a much better person than I'd be if someone was dumb enough to encourage them. 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. "Boldness" as a willingness to take risks is only virtuous as long as it is your self you are risking, when it's other people it is simply arrogance. This can be better served by teaching people that the self has little innate value, and they should be willing to spend it for the benefit of others. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 07:19 |
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:I think what they're saying is that of all the traits that are socially constructed as masculine and feminine, the "feminine" ones are more conducive to creating a healthy and happy society. Gender stereotypes just muddy the waters. Correct, I am disagreeing with the idea that the goal should be to introduce socialization which is currently considered masculine into feminine socializing and instead suggesting that eliminating most masculine socialized traits is far preferable. Obviously masculine and feminine would cease to make sense if you actually achieved a universal socialization, I use the terms because they describe currently existing things, not because they represent my ideals.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 21:57
|
|