Gender Tropes, Reluctant Truths

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it's not like someone can't be a stay at home mom and also ride a motorcycle and compete in triathlons. You job is not your only means of gender roles. Lots of immature people on here. There are entire countries where everyone is not only in their gender role for their job but their entire lifestyle.

I think it bespeaks a certain level of insecurity by certain women (or perhaps regret) when they try to denigrate the choices that other women have made just because they just so happen to conform with "traditional" gender norms. Like they are duty bound to interject themselves into other people's affairs and arrangements, lest their own preferences and choices be somehow deemed inferior.

Cynical take: the more I see this kind of stuff the more I'm certain that 2nd -3rd wave Feminism didn't solve any real problems for women but rather shifted the primary manifestations of our anxieties from anxious-attachment to avoidant-attachment. We work outside the home and earn our own income so now we don't need anyone for anything. Men are irrelevant. And we are SO CONTENT. Every relationship--even our own families--is just a battleground for power so you must position yourself accordingly.

I guess I just don't understand the desire to constantly sh*t on other women's choices, especially if these women are content, as you suggest. Why make someone else's relationship dynamics a part of your battleground? Constantly. It doesn't add up.

The whole battleground thing doesn't sound very fun or pleasant, but I guess that's life. Adjust accordingly. The bolded is a pretty interesting theory and I can definitely see a case for it, but it's also kind of sad b/c it sounds like of alienating. For everyone.

Re contentment: How does that square with the rise of anti-depressant use (women moreso than men) and the absolute and relative declines in self-reported happiness from women. Is it the case that the DCUM demo is more professionally successful and upwardly mobile, so they are not succumbing to these trends as much? There is a certain classed tenor to a statement like "men are irrelevant" that I don't think travels quite as well outside of fora like these.

You raise some interesting thoughts. I'll look into the attachment theories more.

If you’re happy in “traditional roles”, you’re happy.

But don’t pretend like you aren’t perpetuating gender stereotypes.

Would you say the same to women that expect me to pay on first dates, act chivalrous (benevolent sexism grounded in assumption about women), sign up for the draft, perform the more dangerous jobs, "fix stuff" around the house, not cry too much, etc? Many women hold these expectations and it is part of the same dynamic that reinforces female gender stereotypes.

One way deconstruction of gender stereotypes breeds a lot of resentment.

Those women would also be perpetuating stereotypes. Absolutely.

I think the point of disagreement, then, will be re: the usefulness and desirability of stereotypes. We all use them. Some are more acceptable than others.

Part of the trouble might come when pattern recognition (especially decontextualized) evolves into essentialism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it's not like someone can't be a stay at home mom and also ride a motorcycle and compete in triathlons. You job is not your only means of gender roles. Lots of immature people on here. There are entire countries where everyone is not only in their gender role for their job but their entire lifestyle.

I think it bespeaks a certain level of insecurity by certain women (or perhaps regret) when they try to denigrate the choices that other women have made just because they just so happen to conform with "traditional" gender norms. Like they are duty bound to interject themselves into other people's affairs and arrangements, lest their own preferences and choices be somehow deemed inferior.

Cynical take: the more I see this kind of stuff the more I'm certain that 2nd -3rd wave Feminism didn't solve any real problems for women but rather shifted the primary manifestations of our anxieties from anxious-attachment to avoidant-attachment. We work outside the home and earn our own income so now we don't need anyone for anything. Men are irrelevant. And we are SO CONTENT. Every relationship--even our own families--is just a battleground for power so you must position yourself accordingly.

I guess I just don't understand the desire to constantly sh*t on other women's choices, especially if these women are content, as you suggest. Why make someone else's relationship dynamics a part of your battleground? Constantly. It doesn't add up.

The whole battleground thing doesn't sound very fun or pleasant, but I guess that's life. Adjust accordingly. The bolded is a pretty interesting theory and I can definitely see a case for it, but it's also kind of sad b/c it sounds like of alienating. For everyone.

Re contentment: How does that square with the rise of anti-depressant use (women moreso than men) and the absolute and relative declines in self-reported happiness from women. Is it the case that the DCUM demo is more professionally successful and upwardly mobile, so they are not succumbing to these trends as much? There is a certain classed tenor to a statement like "men are irrelevant" that I don't think travels quite as well outside of fora like these.

You raise some interesting thoughts. I'll look into the attachment theories more.

If you’re happy in “traditional roles”, you’re happy.

But don’t pretend like you aren’t perpetuating gender stereotypes.

Would you say the same to women that expect me to pay on first dates, act chivalrous (benevolent sexism grounded in assumption about women), sign up for the draft, perform the more dangerous jobs, "fix stuff" around the house, not cry too much, etc? Many women hold these expectations and it is part of the same dynamic that reinforces female gender stereotypes.

One way deconstruction of gender stereotypes breeds a lot of resentment.

Those women would also be perpetuating stereotypes. Absolutely.

I think the point of disagreement, then, will be re: the usefulness and desirability of stereotypes. We all use them. Some are more acceptable than others.

Part of the trouble might come when pattern recognition (especially decontextualized) evolves into essentialism.

Having preconceived notions of people based solely on their sex organs isn’t helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it's not like someone can't be a stay at home mom and also ride a motorcycle and compete in triathlons. You job is not your only means of gender roles. Lots of immature people on here. There are entire countries where everyone is not only in their gender role for their job but their entire lifestyle.

I think it bespeaks a certain level of insecurity by certain women (or perhaps regret) when they try to denigrate the choices that other women have made just because they just so happen to conform with "traditional" gender norms. Like they are duty bound to interject themselves into other people's affairs and arrangements, lest their own preferences and choices be somehow deemed inferior.

Cynical take: the more I see this kind of stuff the more I'm certain that 2nd -3rd wave Feminism didn't solve any real problems for women but rather shifted the primary manifestations of our anxieties from anxious-attachment to avoidant-attachment. We work outside the home and earn our own income so now we don't need anyone for anything. Men are irrelevant. And we are SO CONTENT. Every relationship--even our own families--is just a battleground for power so you must position yourself accordingly.

I guess I just don't understand the desire to constantly sh*t on other women's choices, especially if these women are content, as you suggest. Why make someone else's relationship dynamics a part of your battleground? Constantly. It doesn't add up.

The whole battleground thing doesn't sound very fun or pleasant, but I guess that's life. Adjust accordingly. The bolded is a pretty interesting theory and I can definitely see a case for it, but it's also kind of sad b/c it sounds like of alienating. For everyone.

Re contentment: How does that square with the rise of anti-depressant use (women moreso than men) and the absolute and relative declines in self-reported happiness from women. Is it the case that the DCUM demo is more professionally successful and upwardly mobile, so they are not succumbing to these trends as much? There is a certain classed tenor to a statement like "men are irrelevant" that I don't think travels quite as well outside of fora like these.

You raise some interesting thoughts. I'll look into the attachment theories more.

If you’re happy in “traditional roles”, you’re happy.

But don’t pretend like you aren’t perpetuating gender stereotypes.

Would you say the same to women that expect me to pay on first dates, act chivalrous (benevolent sexism grounded in assumption about women), sign up for the draft, perform the more dangerous jobs, "fix stuff" around the house, not cry too much, etc? Many women hold these expectations and it is part of the same dynamic that reinforces female gender stereotypes.

One way deconstruction of gender stereotypes breeds a lot of resentment.

Those women would also be perpetuating stereotypes. Absolutely.

I think the point of disagreement, then, will be re: the usefulness and desirability of stereotypes. We all use them. Some are more acceptable than others.

Part of the trouble might come when pattern recognition (especially decontextualized) evolves into essentialism.

Having preconceived notions of people based solely on their sex organs isn’t helpful.

How do you feel about the statement "men generally pose more of a physical danger than women"?

[Anonymous]

The problem is that men are still held to traditional standards (be a high-earning provider), but women aren’t. Competition has increased exponentially for men in the dating and labor markets. Fewer women are having kids, so that means fewer are taking time off from work, therefore more competition for women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it's not like someone can't be a stay at home mom and also ride a motorcycle and compete in triathlons. You job is not your only means of gender roles. Lots of immature people on here. There are entire countries where everyone is not only in their gender role for their job but their entire lifestyle.

I think it bespeaks a certain level of insecurity by certain women (or perhaps regret) when they try to denigrate the choices that other women have made just because they just so happen to conform with "traditional" gender norms. Like they are duty bound to interject themselves into other people's affairs and arrangements, lest their own preferences and choices be somehow deemed inferior.

Cynical take: the more I see this kind of stuff the more I'm certain that 2nd -3rd wave Feminism didn't solve any real problems for women but rather shifted the primary manifestations of our anxieties from anxious-attachment to avoidant-attachment. We work outside the home and earn our own income so now we don't need anyone for anything. Men are irrelevant. And we are SO CONTENT. Every relationship--even our own families--is just a battleground for power so you must position yourself accordingly.

I guess I just don't understand the desire to constantly sh*t on other women's choices, especially if these women are content, as you suggest. Why make someone else's relationship dynamics a part of your battleground? Constantly. It doesn't add up.

The whole battleground thing doesn't sound very fun or pleasant, but I guess that's life. Adjust accordingly. The bolded is a pretty interesting theory and I can definitely see a case for it, but it's also kind of sad b/c it sounds like of alienating. For everyone.

Re contentment: How does that square with the rise of anti-depressant use (women moreso than men) and the absolute and relative declines in self-reported happiness from women. Is it the case that the DCUM demo is more professionally successful and upwardly mobile, so they are not succumbing to these trends as much? There is a certain classed tenor to a statement like "men are irrelevant" that I don't think travels quite as well outside of fora like these.

You raise some interesting thoughts. I'll look into the attachment theories more.

If you’re happy in “traditional roles”, you’re happy.

But don’t pretend like you aren’t perpetuating gender stereotypes.

Would you say the same to women that expect me to pay on first dates, act chivalrous (benevolent sexism grounded in assumption about women), sign up for the draft, perform the more dangerous jobs, "fix stuff" around the house, not cry too much, etc? Many women hold these expectations and it is part of the same dynamic that reinforces female gender stereotypes.

One way deconstruction of gender stereotypes breeds a lot of resentment.

Those women would also be perpetuating stereotypes. Absolutely.

I think the point of disagreement, then, will be re: the usefulness and desirability of stereotypes. We all use them. Some are more acceptable than others.

Part of the trouble might come when pattern recognition (especially decontextualized) evolves into essentialism.

Having preconceived notions of people based solely on their sex organs isn’t helpful.

How do you feel about the statement "men generally pose more of a physical danger than women"?

We can look at crime statistics and see trends. But drawing conclusions about any individual based on that data is harmful.

[Anonymous]

We are entering a civilization crisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it's not like someone can't be a stay at home mom and also ride a motorcycle and compete in triathlons. You job is not your only means of gender roles. Lots of immature people on here. There are entire countries where everyone is not only in their gender role for their job but their entire lifestyle.

I think it bespeaks a certain level of insecurity by certain women (or perhaps regret) when they try to denigrate the choices that other women have made just because they just so happen to conform with "traditional" gender norms. Like they are duty bound to interject themselves into other people's affairs and arrangements, lest their own preferences and choices be somehow deemed inferior.

Cynical take: the more I see this kind of stuff the more I'm certain that 2nd -3rd wave Feminism didn't solve any real problems for women but rather shifted the primary manifestations of our anxieties from anxious-attachment to avoidant-attachment. We work outside the home and earn our own income so now we don't need anyone for anything. Men are irrelevant. And we are SO CONTENT. Every relationship--even our own families--is just a battleground for power so you must position yourself accordingly.

I guess I just don't understand the desire to constantly sh*t on other women's choices, especially if these women are content, as you suggest. Why make someone else's relationship dynamics a part of your battleground? Constantly. It doesn't add up.

The whole battleground thing doesn't sound very fun or pleasant, but I guess that's life. Adjust accordingly. The bolded is a pretty interesting theory and I can definitely see a case for it, but it's also kind of sad b/c it sounds like of alienating. For everyone.

Re contentment: How does that square with the rise of anti-depressant use (women moreso than men) and the absolute and relative declines in self-reported happiness from women. Is it the case that the DCUM demo is more professionally successful and upwardly mobile, so they are not succumbing to these trends as much? There is a certain classed tenor to a statement like "men are irrelevant" that I don't think travels quite as well outside of fora like these.

You raise some interesting thoughts. I'll look into the attachment theories more.

If you’re happy in “traditional roles”, you’re happy.

But don’t pretend like you aren’t perpetuating gender stereotypes.

Would you say the same to women that expect me to pay on first dates, act chivalrous (benevolent sexism grounded in assumption about women), sign up for the draft, perform the more dangerous jobs, "fix stuff" around the house, not cry too much, etc? Many women hold these expectations and it is part of the same dynamic that reinforces female gender stereotypes.

One way deconstruction of gender stereotypes breeds a lot of resentment.

Those women would also be perpetuating stereotypes. Absolutely.

I think the point of disagreement, then, will be re: the usefulness and desirability of stereotypes. We all use them. Some are more acceptable than others.

Part of the trouble might come when pattern recognition (especially decontextualized) evolves into essentialism.

Having preconceived notions of people based solely on their sex organs isn’t helpful.

How do you feel about the statement "men generally pose more of a physical danger than women"?

We can look at crime statistics and see trends. But drawing conclusions about any individual based on that data is harmful.

It's not about drawing conclusions about individuals. It's about enacting safeguards and tailoring your behavior according to recognized trends (or stereotypes).

I think it is helpful when a mother tells a daughter to be a little bit more hesitant and watchful around strange men. Do you not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it's not like someone can't be a stay at home mom and also ride a motorcycle and compete in triathlons. You job is not your only means of gender roles. Lots of immature people on here. There are entire countries where everyone is not only in their gender role for their job but their entire lifestyle.

I think it bespeaks a certain level of insecurity by certain women (or perhaps regret) when they try to denigrate the choices that other women have made just because they just so happen to conform with "traditional" gender norms. Like they are duty bound to interject themselves into other people's affairs and arrangements, lest their own preferences and choices be somehow deemed inferior.

Cynical take: the more I see this kind of stuff the more I'm certain that 2nd -3rd wave Feminism didn't solve any real problems for women but rather shifted the primary manifestations of our anxieties from anxious-attachment to avoidant-attachment. We work outside the home and earn our own income so now we don't need anyone for anything. Men are irrelevant. And we are SO CONTENT. Every relationship--even our own families--is just a battleground for power so you must position yourself accordingly.

I guess I just don't understand the desire to constantly sh*t on other women's choices, especially if these women are content, as you suggest. Why make someone else's relationship dynamics a part of your battleground? Constantly. It doesn't add up.

The whole battleground thing doesn't sound very fun or pleasant, but I guess that's life. Adjust accordingly. The bolded is a pretty interesting theory and I can definitely see a case for it, but it's also kind of sad b/c it sounds like of alienating. For everyone.

Re contentment: How does that square with the rise of anti-depressant use (women moreso than men) and the absolute and relative declines in self-reported happiness from women. Is it the case that the DCUM demo is more professionally successful and upwardly mobile, so they are not succumbing to these trends as much? There is a certain classed tenor to a statement like "men are irrelevant" that I don't think travels quite as well outside of fora like these.

You raise some interesting thoughts. I'll look into the attachment theories more.

Sorry--I was being sarcastic which never translates well online. I am not shitting on the choice to work outside the home. In the context of this particular thread, however, there is a lot of disdain towards domestic work and the general idea of relying on others for your well-being. As humans, we litterally cannot be emotionally healthy without relying on the support of others and having others rely on our support and not have some degree of mental health fall-out.

For anyone who is interested in the way that attachment dysfunction affect our relationships with our families, husbands, kids, friends, etc, I highly recommend listening to this podcast:

https://www.podbean.com/pu/pbblog-8zaam-d06ccd

Since this site leans to the political left, before someone beats me to it I will say that the woman who does this podcast is socially and politically conservative . In most episodes that worldview is really relevant to the discussion but in this particular episide it's not. She interviews a psycholigst who specializes in attachemnt theory for adults (usually we associate it just with kids) and how it affects our relationships. I found it both personally and intellectually fascinating and would recommend it to anyone interested in better understanding how/why people treat us certain ways and why we consciously/subconsciously treat other people as we do. At the very end, he offers some new-to-me advice for how women can re-establish stronger partner bonds with their husbands.

[Anonymous]

Should have added that it's Episode #26

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that men are still held to traditional standards (be a high-earning provider), but women aren’t. Competition has increased exponentially for men in the dating and labor markets. Fewer women are having kids, so that means fewer are taking time off from work, therefore more competition for women.

By people who cling to traditional gender roles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it's not like someone can't be a stay at home mom and also ride a motorcycle and compete in triathlons. You job is not your only means of gender roles. Lots of immature people on here. There are entire countries where everyone is not only in their gender role for their job but their entire lifestyle.

I think it bespeaks a certain level of insecurity by certain women (or perhaps regret) when they try to denigrate the choices that other women have made just because they just so happen to conform with "traditional" gender norms. Like they are duty bound to interject themselves into other people's affairs and arrangements, lest their own preferences and choices be somehow deemed inferior.

Cynical take: the more I see this kind of stuff the more I'm certain that 2nd -3rd wave Feminism didn't solve any real problems for women but rather shifted the primary manifestations of our anxieties from anxious-attachment to avoidant-attachment. We work outside the home and earn our own income so now we don't need anyone for anything. Men are irrelevant. And we are SO CONTENT. Every relationship--even our own families--is just a battleground for power so you must position yourself accordingly.

I guess I just don't understand the desire to constantly sh*t on other women's choices, especially if these women are content, as you suggest. Why make someone else's relationship dynamics a part of your battleground? Constantly. It doesn't add up.

The whole battleground thing doesn't sound very fun or pleasant, but I guess that's life. Adjust accordingly. The bolded is a pretty interesting theory and I can definitely see a case for it, but it's also kind of sad b/c it sounds like of alienating. For everyone.

Re contentment: How does that square with the rise of anti-depressant use (women moreso than men) and the absolute and relative declines in self-reported happiness from women. Is it the case that the DCUM demo is more professionally successful and upwardly mobile, so they are not succumbing to these trends as much? There is a certain classed tenor to a statement like "men are irrelevant" that I don't think travels quite as well outside of fora like these.

You raise some interesting thoughts. I'll look into the attachment theories more.

Sorry--I was being sarcastic which never translates well online. I am not shitting on the choice to work outside the home. In the context of this particular thread, however, there is a lot of disdain towards domestic work and the general idea of relying on others for your well-being. As humans, we litterally cannot be emotionally healthy without relying on the support of others and having others rely on our support and not have some degree of mental health fall-out.

For anyone who is interested in the way that attachment dysfunction affect our relationships with our families, husbands, kids, friends, etc, I highly recommend listening to this podcast:

https://www.podbean.com/pu/pbblog-8zaam-d06ccd

Since this site leans to the political left, before someone beats me to it I will say that the woman who does this podcast is socially and politically conservative . In most episodes that worldview is really relevant to the discussion but in this particular episide it's not. She interviews a psycholigst who specializes in attachemnt theory for adults (usually we associate it just with kids) and how it affects our relationships. I found it both personally and intellectually fascinating and would recommend it to anyone interested in better understanding how/why people treat us certain ways and why we consciously/subconsciously treat other people as we do. At the very end, he offers some new-to-me advice for how women can re-establish stronger partner bonds with their husbands.

LOL, sorry I misread. Makes sense now. The all caps on content should have been the tell. I. am. so. SO. happy. Can't. you. Tell?1?

Will check some of these episodes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that men are still held to traditional standards (be a high-earning provider), but women aren’t. Competition has increased exponentially for men in the dating and labor markets. Fewer women are having kids, so that means fewer are taking time off from work, therefore more competition for women.

By people who cling to traditional gender roles.

By everyone. Women want partners who make more than them, are fit and are handy. Those are traditional standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it's not like someone can't be a stay at home mom and also ride a motorcycle and compete in triathlons. You job is not your only means of gender roles. Lots of immature people on here. There are entire countries where everyone is not only in their gender role for their job but their entire lifestyle.

I think it bespeaks a certain level of insecurity by certain women (or perhaps regret) when they try to denigrate the choices that other women have made just because they just so happen to conform with "traditional" gender norms. Like they are duty bound to interject themselves into other people's affairs and arrangements, lest their own preferences and choices be somehow deemed inferior.

Cynical take: the more I see this kind of stuff the more I'm certain that 2nd -3rd wave Feminism didn't solve any real problems for women but rather shifted the primary manifestations of our anxieties from anxious-attachment to avoidant-attachment. We work outside the home and earn our own income so now we don't need anyone for anything. Men are irrelevant. And we are SO CONTENT. Every relationship--even our own families--is just a battleground for power so you must position yourself accordingly.

I guess I just don't understand the desire to constantly sh*t on other women's choices, especially if these women are content, as you suggest. Why make someone else's relationship dynamics a part of your battleground? Constantly. It doesn't add up.

The whole battleground thing doesn't sound very fun or pleasant, but I guess that's life. Adjust accordingly. The bolded is a pretty interesting theory and I can definitely see a case for it, but it's also kind of sad b/c it sounds like of alienating. For everyone.

Re contentment: How does that square with the rise of anti-depressant use (women moreso than men) and the absolute and relative declines in self-reported happiness from women. Is it the case that the DCUM demo is more professionally successful and upwardly mobile, so they are not succumbing to these trends as much? There is a certain classed tenor to a statement like "men are irrelevant" that I don't think travels quite as well outside of fora like these.

You raise some interesting thoughts. I'll look into the attachment theories more.

If you’re happy in “traditional roles”, you’re happy.

But don’t pretend like you aren’t perpetuating gender stereotypes.

Would you say the same to women that expect me to pay on first dates, act chivalrous (benevolent sexism grounded in assumption about women), sign up for the draft, perform the more dangerous jobs, "fix stuff" around the house, not cry too much, etc? Many women hold these expectations and it is part of the same dynamic that reinforces female gender stereotypes.

One way deconstruction of gender stereotypes breeds a lot of resentment.

Those women would also be perpetuating stereotypes. Absolutely.

I think the point of disagreement, then, will be re: the usefulness and desirability of stereotypes. We all use them. Some are more acceptable than others.

Part of the trouble might come when pattern recognition (especially decontextualized) evolves into essentialism.

Having preconceived notions of people based solely on their sex organs isn’t helpful.

How do you feel about the statement "men generally pose more of a physical danger than women"?

We can look at crime statistics and see trends. But drawing conclusions about any individual based on that data is harmful.

It's not about drawing conclusions about individuals. It's about enacting safeguards and tailoring your behavior according to recognized trends (or stereotypes).

I think it is helpful when a mother tells a daughter to be a little bit more hesitant and watchful around strange men. Do you not?

I teach all of my kids to be aware of their surroundings and to avoid putting themselves into risky situations (drunk). But I never say to be wary of strange men. That’s not something I ever heard growing up either. Very odd, fearful advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that men are still held to traditional standards (be a high-earning provider), but women aren’t. Competition has increased exponentially for men in the dating and labor markets. Fewer women are having kids, so that means fewer are taking time off from work, therefore more competition for women.

By people who cling to traditional gender roles.

By everyone. Women want partners who make more than them, are fit and are handy. Those are traditional standards.

Not by everyone. I want an equal partner in finances as well as household/childcare responsibilities. This is common in my circles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it's not like someone can't be a stay at home mom and also ride a motorcycle and compete in triathlons. You job is not your only means of gender roles. Lots of immature people on here. There are entire countries where everyone is not only in their gender role for their job but their entire lifestyle.

I think it bespeaks a certain level of insecurity by certain women (or perhaps regret) when they try to denigrate the choices that other women have made just because they just so happen to conform with "traditional" gender norms. Like they are duty bound to interject themselves into other people's affairs and arrangements, lest their own preferences and choices be somehow deemed inferior.

Cynical take: the more I see this kind of stuff the more I'm certain that 2nd -3rd wave Feminism didn't solve any real problems for women but rather shifted the primary manifestations of our anxieties from anxious-attachment to avoidant-attachment. We work outside the home and earn our own income so now we don't need anyone for anything. Men are irrelevant. And we are SO CONTENT. Every relationship--even our own families--is just a battleground for power so you must position yourself accordingly.

I guess I just don't understand the desire to constantly sh*t on other women's choices, especially if these women are content, as you suggest. Why make someone else's relationship dynamics a part of your battleground? Constantly. It doesn't add up.

The whole battleground thing doesn't sound very fun or pleasant, but I guess that's life. Adjust accordingly. The bolded is a pretty interesting theory and I can definitely see a case for it, but it's also kind of sad b/c it sounds like of alienating. For everyone.

Re contentment: How does that square with the rise of anti-depressant use (women moreso than men) and the absolute and relative declines in self-reported happiness from women. Is it the case that the DCUM demo is more professionally successful and upwardly mobile, so they are not succumbing to these trends as much? There is a certain classed tenor to a statement like "men are irrelevant" that I don't think travels quite as well outside of fora like these.

You raise some interesting thoughts. I'll look into the attachment theories more.

If you’re happy in “traditional roles”, you’re happy.

But don’t pretend like you aren’t perpetuating gender stereotypes.

Would you say the same to women that expect me to pay on first dates, act chivalrous (benevolent sexism grounded in assumption about women), sign up for the draft, perform the more dangerous jobs, "fix stuff" around the house, not cry too much, etc? Many women hold these expectations and it is part of the same dynamic that reinforces female gender stereotypes.

One way deconstruction of gender stereotypes breeds a lot of resentment.

Those women would also be perpetuating stereotypes. Absolutely.

I think the point of disagreement, then, will be re: the usefulness and desirability of stereotypes. We all use them. Some are more acceptable than others.

Part of the trouble might come when pattern recognition (especially decontextualized) evolves into essentialism.

Having preconceived notions of people based solely on their sex organs isn’t helpful.

How do you feel about the statement "men generally pose more of a physical danger than women"?

We can look at crime statistics and see trends. But drawing conclusions about any individual based on that data is harmful.

It's not about drawing conclusions about individuals. It's about enacting safeguards and tailoring your behavior according to recognized trends (or stereotypes).

I think it is helpful when a mother tells a daughter to be a little bit more hesitant and watchful around strange men. Do you not?

I teach all of my kids to be aware of their surroundings and to avoid putting themselves into risky situations (drunk). But I never say to be wary of strange men. That’s not something I ever heard growing up either. Very odd, fearful advice.

Surely you know that first drink reduces your child’s ability to protect themselves. Everyone is different.