|
boner confessor posted:feminism is pretty much about women's issues in a society which discriminates against women. there is some space there for "men's issues" in the way that men can also be damaged by the patriarchy - for example, young men stereotypically not knowing how (or being willing to) cook or clean or keep house is a problem when they move out on their own, which is part of why homes where young adult men live are often disgusting. This is why we shouldn't mix up movements and ideologies. Ideologies have infinite space. People could write a billion books on men. There will still be paper for books on women. Movements don't have infinite space. A meeting lasts an hour. Each minute on men is a minute that's not spent on women. So, male equality is (and should be) part of Feminism the ideology. But, if there are men's issues that need attention, that attention should come from its own social movement.
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
The Kingfish posted:You are right that it would be shouted down instantly, but get this: maybe that isn't a good thing?? 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. Either way, there are people who are suffering. They should be helped because they're suffering. Knowing the cause might help us target our interventions better. But biological causes of a disease don't matter if we're at the, "why should anyone care?" stage. So focusing on them is a pointless distraction. In all the examples that Blue Star brought up, it seems like we could just go, "Suppose you're right. So what?"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That assumes the discussion is taking place in a vacuum. Not really. Though I don't think it would make much difference if it were. What context are you assuming, and why would it change your approach?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If someone wants to argue I don't generally care that much if my opponent is compassionate. I can argue to improve my own thinking. Or I can argue to convince an audience. Or I can argue to convince my opponent. In the first two, my opponent's inner life doesn't matter. They could be sympathetic. Or not. What's important is that they're interesting and a good foil. If I'm trying to convince my opponent then I generally assume that they're not compassionate to my position. If they were, we'd already agree.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 00:11
|
|
they probably aren't doing so from a compassionate position.
|
Guy Goodbody posted:So Pat got a verbal agreement for some unspecified sharing of housework. Rudatron suggests coming up with an objective system where both parties agree to specific things and records are kept. You might not see the distinction there, but it's very important! I pretty much agree (and am also unclear on how an article could disprove your "should" claim). But I took Rudatron's advice to mean that people should go into the "I'm unhappy" conversation with a tally of how much work got done in the last week and who did it. Even if the couple doesn't get to the point of a chore chart, it seems like, "I vacuumed 4 times last week, you did it once" would be a much better starting point than "you should vacuum more". Quantifying stuff seems useful for setting expectations, too. If the cleaner partner asks to have the carpets vacuumed twice a week, then that's a conversation about splitting chores. If they want it vacuumed ten times, then that's probably a conversation about reasonable standards. (Again, I don't think we substantively disagree, but wanted to show how numbers could help, even if people aren't making permanent charts)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Actually assuming that your lack of concern for tidiness overrules her concern for cleanliness is quite systematically misogynist. How so? We could make everyone men, everyone women, or everyone genderless porpoises and the situation wouldn't really change. It's not like slobs were clean when they were rooming with other people of the same gender
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because which part of society do you suppose is favored by that mindset? Slobs
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted: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? I think Rudatron got it early on. People should start by assuming the problem like a communication issue (which is fixable) rather than an apathy or malice issue (which is unfixable) From there you, the exercise is just about how you set expectations, and on how you'd show someone that they're consistently failing to meet their agreed standard. If someone has agreed to do things, fails, is aware that they're failing, and doesn't change, then you've no longer got a communication problem, but a motivation on. At that point, several. The remaining discussion seems to be about specific conversational tactics. That and how we should apportion moral fault. The former is kind of specific to the situation and people. The latter seems irrelevant (I'm unhappy, but morally blameless. Yay?)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:
I'm also not sure why you're disagreeing with him. The (oddly-specific) relationship you're inventing seems toxic. And you're saying that the shirking partner is ready for adult relationships?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Then assume it's one that doesn't. Also, again, it's not so much a question of what as of when and how often. Like, there's a massive gap between "washing dishes before vermin arrive or when you need one" and "washing dishes and putting them back where they belong after use, so the kitchen always looks orderly". Yes. I would be very annoyed with a partner who told me that the dishes were fine because they have not yet started to attract flies. I would hope that this is just hyperbole, and that most people are cleaning to an aesthetic standard, not a literal "avoid vermin" one
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
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
|
|