Feminism, femininity, and marriage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men act like tough guys because the girls aren't vying for the attention of the soft and gentle men. Go to the high school and colleges - what are the qualities of the guys the prettiest girls (who, generally speaking, have the most options when it comes to guys) are trying to date? Are those guys displaying traditionally masculine traits? Are those guys displaying soft and gentle traits? Or is it an even mix between those things?

Because men will, by and large, try to develop those traits that will get them laid by the prettiest women.

Are you suggesting that this standard is a good standard? That it is supportive and empowering to everyone? That these standards are positive for society?

Not putting normative values on it, I'm describing the process. You get what's rewarded. If you can figure out a way to cause pretty girls to be sexually excited by soft and gentle men, I think societal gender dynamics will change pretty quickly.

Only pretty girls? Why would feminists only care about what pretty girls want? Feminists care about all girls, and all boys, too. Pretty, athletic, tough, soft, in shape, out of shape, tall, short, etc. I don't think feminism exists so that men get rewarded by a pretty girl for acting a certain way. Girls are not a reward. Girls are human beings. Girls and boys should have a choice in who they are and what they do. Who they are attracted to is part of that choice, but it's not any movement's fault if pretty girls aren't choosing you personally. Understand?

What I'm telling you is what men respond to. If you tell boys, as they're growing up, that some day, maybe when he's 30, if he's soft and gentle, a plain looking woman with good credentials will want to enter into a mutually beneficial family arrangement, he's not going to aspire to those traits. Meanwhile, *right now* the hottest girls in school are flirting outrageously with the strong, fast, loud, aggressive guy. And if you don't think that's who is getting the most attention from women (plain and attractive alike) during the years in and around puberty when a lot of gender-dynamics are being formed, you're kidding yourself.

We all have to settle. Settle for the best mate we can get. Or settle for having no mate at all. I don't care what he "aspires" to.
Everybody has to grow up. You don't get your fantasy Madonna/whore hot/homemaking wives handed to you. Sorry to disappoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We already had an entire discussion on this. Read the past few pages. I am a woman, and your insults just show how crass you are. Degrading someone's opinions based on gender is also sexist. So you can go STFU.

You're telling me to STFU and calling me crass in the same sentence! HA!

As I suspected, you don't actually have anything to contribute to this "discussion" other than some ridiculous generalizations about other people's marriages and choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We already had an entire discussion on this. Read the past few pages. I am a woman, and your insults just show how crass you are. Degrading someone's opinions based on gender is also sexist. So you can go STFU.

You're telling me to STFU and calling me crass in the same sentence! HA!

As I suspected, you don't actually have anything to contribute to this "discussion" other than some ridiculous generalizations about other people's marriages and choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Families were stressed back when women followed traditional gender roles, just in a different way. The truth is that there are no good options. Families are stressful. When women played traditional gender roles, they were stressed all the time because they were treated very badly by the majority of husbands (of course, maybe 25% of the husbands were good, but 75% treated their wives and children someplace between their dog and their car). When women try to have some power in the relationship, by bringing in money and some independence, they have some self respect, but end up working 24/7. I think it is an impossible problem, and we just have to accept that families will always make at least 50% of the people miserable.

There's an interesting premise buried in your paragraph. I totally get the problem with the power disparity -- even if I'm skeptical of your statistics. (Wouldn't really matter if it was only, say, 20% of husbands abusing the power structure). But the idea that self-respect should be tied to bringing in money, rather than other life activities, is troublesome. Making money is often a shallow endeavor, unrewarding in the long term. It's necessary but, in my opinion, overvalued in our society. Our culture's narrow focus on earning and consumption makes our lives shallow and sad.

True, but we live in our society, so we have to deal with its rules. They are there, whether we like it or not. And face it: money gives you freedom, and freedom means choice, which can often help with happiness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Families were stressed back when women followed traditional gender roles, just in a different way. The truth is that there are no good options. Families are stressful. When women played traditional gender roles, they were stressed all the time because they were treated very badly by the majority of husbands (of course, maybe 25% of the husbands were good, but 75% treated their wives and children someplace between their dog and their car). When women try to have some power in the relationship, by bringing in money and some independence, they have some self respect, but end up working 24/7. I think it is an impossible problem, and we just have to accept that families will always make at least 50% of the people miserable.

There's an interesting premise buried in your paragraph. I totally get the problem with the power disparity -- even if I'm skeptical of your statistics. (Wouldn't really matter if it was only, say, 20% of husbands abusing the power structure). But the idea that self-respect should be tied to bringing in money, rather than other life activities, is troublesome. Making money is often a shallow endeavor, unrewarding in the long term. It's necessary but, in my opinion, overvalued in our society. Our culture's narrow focus on earning and consumption makes our lives shallow and sad.

True, but we live in our society, so we have to deal with its rules. They are there, whether we like it or not. And face it: money gives you freedom, and freedom means choice, which can often help with happiness.

The same holds true with the qualities we encourage our boys to embrace. Being strong, fast, loud, and aggressive gives men more choices - choices in women, choices in money making opportunities - even while those qualities can cause problems for society generally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Femininity is irrelevant to the larger political issues. I'm a sexy feminist, but the fact that I'm sexy doesn't matter one iota beyond my marriage. What matters is my larger contribution to society. If all you're doing is being feminine, yes, I look down on that.

Where does care giving to the children fit into that analysis? Care giving has traditionally been seen as a feminine quality, but raising your child contributes to society far more than does, say, being the accounts receivable manager for some mid-sized business.

Caregiving is not correlated to gender or masculinity or femininity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Families were stressed back when women followed traditional gender roles, just in a different way. The truth is that there are no good options. Families are stressful. When women played traditional gender roles, they were stressed all the time because they were treated very badly by the majority of husbands (of course, maybe 25% of the husbands were good, but 75% treated their wives and children someplace between their dog and their car). When women try to have some power in the relationship, by bringing in money and some independence, they have some self respect, but end up working 24/7. I think it is an impossible problem, and we just have to accept that families will always make at least 50% of the people miserable.

There's an interesting premise buried in your paragraph. I totally get the problem with the power disparity -- even if I'm skeptical of your statistics. (Wouldn't really matter if it was only, say, 20% of husbands abusing the power structure). But the idea that self-respect should be tied to bringing in money, rather than other life activities, is troublesome. Making money is often a shallow endeavor, unrewarding in the long term. It's necessary but, in my opinion, overvalued in our society. Our culture's narrow focus on earning and consumption makes our lives shallow and sad.

True, but we live in our society, so we have to deal with its rules. They are there, whether we like it or not. And face it: money gives you freedom, and freedom means choice, which can often help with happiness.

The same holds true with the qualities we encourage our boys to embrace. Being strong, fast, loud, and aggressive gives men more choices - choices in women, choices in money making opportunities - even while those qualities can cause problems for society generally.

+1 yes it works both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Families were stressed back when women followed traditional gender roles, just in a different way. The truth is that there are no good options. Families are stressful. When women played traditional gender roles, they were stressed all the time because they were treated very badly by the majority of husbands (of course, maybe 25% of the husbands were good, but 75% treated their wives and children someplace between their dog and their car). When women try to have some power in the relationship, by bringing in money and some independence, they have some self respect, but end up working 24/7. I think it is an impossible problem, and we just have to accept that families will always make at least 50% of the people miserable.

There's an interesting premise buried in your paragraph. I totally get the problem with the power disparity -- even if I'm skeptical of your statistics. (Wouldn't really matter if it was only, say, 20% of husbands abusing the power structure). But the idea that self-respect should be tied to bringing in money, rather than other life activities, is troublesome. Making money is often a shallow endeavor, unrewarding in the long term. It's necessary but, in my opinion, overvalued in our society. Our culture's narrow focus on earning and consumption makes our lives shallow and sad.

True, but we live in our society, so we have to deal with its rules. They are there, whether we like it or not. And face it: money gives you freedom, and freedom means choice, which can often help with happiness.

The same holds true with the qualities we encourage our boys to embrace. Being strong, fast, loud, and aggressive gives men more choices - choices in women, choices in money making opportunities - even while those qualities can cause problems for society generally.

This is where your logic fails. I encourage my girl AND my boy to be strong, fast and assertive when appropriate, not aggressive. Loud and aggressive are not desirable habits, not in a child, not in a teenager, not in a partner, and not in the workplace. Unless you are a WWE wrestler, of course.

[Anonymous]

One of my issues with this whole discussion is that it relies on a Leave it to Beaver fantasy of family life that few attained in the past, certainly not my AA ancestors (all married before having children, thank you) or my Irish immigrant great-grandmother. Those ladies worked from necessity, often when prejudice kept their men from being gainfully employed. They raised sons and daughters who valued higher education and careers for women and men alike. My grandfather once widowed kept his home on his own because he didn't want his eight daughters interrupting their studies and jobs to cook and clean for him. My father is a bigger feminist than my mother because his mother had to give up her factory job when men came home from the war and she never made as much afterwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Families were stressed back when women followed traditional gender roles, just in a different way. The truth is that there are no good options. Families are stressful. When women played traditional gender roles, they were stressed all the time because they were treated very badly by the majority of husbands (of course, maybe 25% of the husbands were good, but 75% treated their wives and children someplace between their dog and their car). When women try to have some power in the relationship, by bringing in money and some independence, they have some self respect, but end up working 24/7. I think it is an impossible problem, and we just have to accept that families will always make at least 50% of the people miserable.

There's an interesting premise buried in your paragraph. I totally get the problem with the power disparity -- even if I'm skeptical of your statistics. (Wouldn't really matter if it was only, say, 20% of husbands abusing the power structure). But the idea that self-respect should be tied to bringing in money, rather than other life activities, is troublesome. Making money is often a shallow endeavor, unrewarding in the long term. It's necessary but, in my opinion, overvalued in our society. Our culture's narrow focus on earning and consumption makes our lives shallow and sad.

True, but we live in our society, so we have to deal with its rules. They are there, whether we like it or not. And face it: money gives you freedom, and freedom means choice, which can often help with happiness.

The same holds true with the qualities we encourage our boys to embrace. Being strong, fast, loud, and aggressive gives men more choices - choices in women, choices in money making opportunities - even while those qualities can cause problems for society generally.

This is where your logic fails. I encourage my girl AND my boy to be strong, fast and assertive when appropriate, not aggressive. Loud and aggressive are not desirable habits, not in a child, not in a teenager, not in a partner, and not in the workplace. Unless you are a WWE wrestler, of course.

You're picking at straws at this point. Take out the aggressive noun and everything else the PP says holds true. Being strong fast and assertive helps boys in both their social mating lives and careers. So suddenly admonishing boys to "tone it down" won't work, there is no incentive. Being strong fast and assertive similarly help girls in their careers. I highly doubt you have a son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of my issues with this whole discussion is that it relies on a Leave it to Beaver fantasy of family life that few attained in the past, certainly not my AA ancestors (all married before having children, thank you) or my Irish immigrant great-grandmother. Those ladies worked from necessity, often when prejudice kept their men from being gainfully employed. They raised sons and daughters who valued higher education and careers for women and men alike. My grandfather once widowed kept his home on his own because he didn't want his eight daughters interrupting their studies and jobs to cook and clean for him. My father is a bigger feminist than my mother because his mother had to give up her factory job when men came home from the war and she never made as much afterwards.

Yep. I had a Gma who supposedly dabbled in prostitution because her husband couldn't support the family on his own. This is what traditionalists want us to return to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Families were stressed back when women followed traditional gender roles, just in a different way. The truth is that there are no good options. Families are stressful. When women played traditional gender roles, they were stressed all the time because they were treated very badly by the majority of husbands (of course, maybe 25% of the husbands were good, but 75% treated their wives and children someplace between their dog and their car). When women try to have some power in the relationship, by bringing in money and some independence, they have some self respect, but end up working 24/7. I think it is an impossible problem, and we just have to accept that families will always make at least 50% of the people miserable.

There's an interesting premise buried in your paragraph. I totally get the problem with the power disparity -- even if I'm skeptical of your statistics. (Wouldn't really matter if it was only, say, 20% of husbands abusing the power structure). But the idea that self-respect should be tied to bringing in money, rather than other life activities, is troublesome. Making money is often a shallow endeavor, unrewarding in the long term. It's necessary but, in my opinion, overvalued in our society. Our culture's narrow focus on earning and consumption makes our lives shallow and sad.

True, but we live in our society, so we have to deal with its rules. They are there, whether we like it or not. And face it: money gives you freedom, and freedom means choice, which can often help with happiness.

The same holds true with the qualities we encourage our boys to embrace. Being strong, fast, loud, and aggressive gives men more choices - choices in women, choices in money making opportunities - even while those qualities can cause problems for society generally.

This is where your logic fails. I encourage my girl AND my boy to be strong, fast and assertive when appropriate, not aggressive. Loud and aggressive are not desirable habits, not in a child, not in a teenager, not in a partner, and not in the workplace. Unless you are a WWE wrestler, of course.

You're picking at straws at this point. Take out the aggressive noun and everything else the PP says holds true. Being strong fast and assertive helps boys in both their social mating lives and careers. So suddenly admonishing boys to "tone it down" won't work, there is no incentive. Being strong fast and assertive similarly help girls in their careers. I highly doubt you have a son.

Why on earth would you doubt that? It's not nitpicky to say that you are dead wrong about "loud and aggressive" behavior being a desirable trait in anyone. In fact, boys are being medicated in record numbers in order to keep them from being loud and aggressive.

I do have a son who is sometimes loud, rarely aggressive, and sweet as can be with a very, very big heart. He is being raised by two working parents, including a very loving and nurturing father. I have zero concerns about his future, either in dating or in finding a job. Our family situation, with its shared roles and responsibilities, is completely ordinary for this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Families were stressed back when women followed traditional gender roles, just in a different way. The truth is that there are no good options. Families are stressful. When women played traditional gender roles, they were stressed all the time because they were treated very badly by the majority of husbands (of course, maybe 25% of the husbands were good, but 75% treated their wives and children someplace between their dog and their car). When women try to have some power in the relationship, by bringing in money and some independence, they have some self respect, but end up working 24/7. I think it is an impossible problem, and we just have to accept that families will always make at least 50% of the people miserable.

There's an interesting premise buried in your paragraph. I totally get the problem with the power disparity -- even if I'm skeptical of your statistics. (Wouldn't really matter if it was only, say, 20% of husbands abusing the power structure). But the idea that self-respect should be tied to bringing in money, rather than other life activities, is troublesome. Making money is often a shallow endeavor, unrewarding in the long term. It's necessary but, in my opinion, overvalued in our society. Our culture's narrow focus on earning and consumption makes our lives shallow and sad.

True, but we live in our society, so we have to deal with its rules. They are there, whether we like it or not. And face it: money gives you freedom, and freedom means choice, which can often help with happiness.

The same holds true with the qualities we encourage our boys to embrace. Being strong, fast, loud, and aggressive gives men more choices - choices in women, choices in money making opportunities - even while those qualities can cause problems for society generally.

+1 yes it works both ways.

Yes, and this is why we are all doomed to unhappiness. Nobody wants to be a saint, and sacrifice and be treated like dirt, for the good of society. And yet if we all pursue our independent goals, we will all be miserable because that is not what produces a good society. I may be cynical, but I just no longer believe that there will ever be a time when the majority of people are happy. It goes against our fundamental biology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Families were stressed back when women followed traditional gender roles, just in a different way. The truth is that there are no good options. Families are stressful. When women played traditional gender roles, they were stressed all the time because they were treated very badly by the majority of husbands (of course, maybe 25% of the husbands were good, but 75% treated their wives and children someplace between their dog and their car). When women try to have some power in the relationship, by bringing in money and some independence, they have some self respect, but end up working 24/7. I think it is an impossible problem, and we just have to accept that families will always make at least 50% of the people miserable.

There's an interesting premise buried in your paragraph. I totally get the problem with the power disparity -- even if I'm skeptical of your statistics. (Wouldn't really matter if it was only, say, 20% of husbands abusing the power structure). But the idea that self-respect should be tied to bringing in money, rather than other life activities, is troublesome. Making money is often a shallow endeavor, unrewarding in the long term. It's necessary but, in my opinion, overvalued in our society. Our culture's narrow focus on earning and consumption makes our lives shallow and sad.

True, but we live in our society, so we have to deal with its rules. They are there, whether we like it or not. And face it: money gives you freedom, and freedom means choice, which can often help with happiness.

The same holds true with the qualities we encourage our boys to embrace. Being strong, fast, loud, and aggressive gives men more choices - choices in women, choices in money making opportunities - even while those qualities can cause problems for society generally.

This is where your logic fails. I encourage my girl AND my boy to be strong, fast and assertive when appropriate, not aggressive. Loud and aggressive are not desirable habits, not in a child, not in a teenager, not in a partner, and not in the workplace. Unless you are a WWE wrestler, of course.

You're picking at straws at this point. Take out the aggressive noun and everything else the PP says holds true. Being strong fast and assertive helps boys in both their social mating lives and careers. So suddenly admonishing boys to "tone it down" won't work, there is no incentive. Being strong fast and assertive similarly help girls in their careers. I highly doubt you have a son.

Why on earth would you doubt that? It's not nitpicky to say that you are dead wrong about "loud and aggressive" behavior being a desirable trait in anyone. In fact, boys are being medicated in record numbers in order to keep them from being loud and aggressive.

I do have a son who is sometimes loud, rarely aggressive, and sweet as can be with a very, very big heart. He is being raised by two working parents, including a very loving and nurturing father. I have zero concerns about his future, either in dating or in finding a job. Our family situation, with its shared roles and responsibilities, is completely ordinary for this area.

How sad that we're doing this to our boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Families were stressed back when women followed traditional gender roles, just in a different way. The truth is that there are no good options. Families are stressful. When women played traditional gender roles, they were stressed all the time because they were treated very badly by the majority of husbands (of course, maybe 25% of the husbands were good, but 75% treated their wives and children someplace between their dog and their car). When women try to have some power in the relationship, by bringing in money and some independence, they have some self respect, but end up working 24/7. I think it is an impossible problem, and we just have to accept that families will always make at least 50% of the people miserable.

There's an interesting premise buried in your paragraph. I totally get the problem with the power disparity -- even if I'm skeptical of your statistics. (Wouldn't really matter if it was only, say, 20% of husbands abusing the power structure). But the idea that self-respect should be tied to bringing in money, rather than other life activities, is troublesome. Making money is often a shallow endeavor, unrewarding in the long term. It's necessary but, in my opinion, overvalued in our society. Our culture's narrow focus on earning and consumption makes our lives shallow and sad.

True, but we live in our society, so we have to deal with its rules. They are there, whether we like it or not. And face it: money gives you freedom, and freedom means choice, which can often help with happiness.

The same holds true with the qualities we encourage our boys to embrace. Being strong, fast, loud, and aggressive gives men more choices - choices in women, choices in money making opportunities - even while those qualities can cause problems for society generally.

+1 yes it works both ways.

Yes, and this is why we are all doomed to unhappiness. Nobody wants to be a saint, and sacrifice and be treated like dirt, for the good of society. And yet if we all pursue our independent goals, we will all be miserable because that is not what produces a good society. I may be cynical, but I just no longer believe that there will ever be a time when the majority of people are happy. It goes against our fundamental biology.

so by "nobody" wants to sacrifice for the good of society, you mean, women, right?