How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Feminism   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Feminism

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


25 posted 04-07-2008 01:07 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Of course, I agree with you that conforming to a goal doesn’t mean you conform to the cause; but is that really what this topic is about? Not really. We’re talking about feminism and whether or not it is a good thing.

We are, indeed. Your post, however, was about the goals of feminism, with a fairly obvious implication that lofty goals are enough to justify the cause.

When you ask a rhetorical question (How can that possibly be bad?) you need to tell us it's a rhetorical question, Edward. Otherwise, people might try to answer it.    

quote:
The goals of communism entailed total government control that affected everyone involved in a very negative way and the end meant living under an absolutist regime.

Source, please?

I think you, too, might be confusing goals with methods. Think commune and hippies. The goal of communism has nothing to do with government at all. It's about people cooperating with people instead of competing against each other all the time.

"Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production."

Personally, I think the comparison between feminism and communism is an apt one, and I suspect the responses in this thread lend testimony to that. Communism clearly has gotten a really bad rap (at least in the West), not because its goals are evil, but because people don't always separate goals from methods. Sloppy thinking again. It's not quite that bad on the feminist front, but I doubt this thread would even exist if there wasn't a reason someone felt they needed to ask the question. Not everyone who believes in the feminist cause has used conservative methods to attain their goals. Like communism, feminism has gotten a bad rap in some circles, with people blaming the cause right along with the implementation.

And that's a shame.

Seoulair
Senior Member
since 03-27-2008
Posts 776
Seoul S.Korea


26 posted 04-07-2008 01:31 AM       View Profile for Seoulair   Email Seoulair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Seoulair

quote:
feminism has gotten a bad rap in some circles, with people blaming the cause right along with the implementation.

Do you want to say that all are good unless you use the bad methods to achieve it? But when you use the bad methods then the original goal will be tarnished. then what?   give up or keep going?
Which is more important? Woman's right or man's opinions?  

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


27 posted 04-07-2008 05:26 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

quote:
   Seoulair:

Which is more important? Woman's right or man's opinions?  




     Near as I can tell, these are two independent variables.  There is no particularly useful method for actually measuring one against the other.  Height?  Weight?  Volume?  Density?  Velocity?  It simply serves as a question designed to stir rancor.  In terms of communication theory it puts anyone so foolish as to attempt an answer into a "double bind."  Heads I win, tails you loose.

     The discussion so far does not seem to offer much illumination for me.  Edward Grim has offered a definition of Feminism that I thought was useful and straightforward.  The marxist notion that I thought probably most to the point in a discussion of women's rights and Feminism is not actually the material about authoritarian governments, which really seems to describe not only Communist governments, but also authoritarian governments of the Right, doesn't it?

     The material that I thought most to the point was the marxist literature on "mystified oppression."  There's material on this in both Marx himself but also, I believe in Herbert Marcuse as well.  The notion is that people continue to function under Capitalist economic systems because the workers are misled about what's happening to them by "the forces of Capital."  They are kept from organizing in unions and in cooperative groups to take advantage of the power inherent in the labor they sell on the market by attempts to have them buy into the Capitalist dream.  In Marxist theory, this is sheer foolishness.  It's the equivalent of cattle investing in stock yards.

     For women to go along with anything other than a Feminist agenda, following this train of reasoning, simply erodes whatever freedoms women have gained with nothing gotten in return.

     I must say that with both Feminism and labor, I feel this Marxist critique, which I am not articulate enough to express well, has a lot to be said for it.  The assault on middle and lower class income and security over the last 40 years or so has to my mind been appalling, and the loss of freedom and potential gains for women over the same length of time has also been painful for me to see.

     I know others disagree.

     I don't think the marxists have done well for themselves.  That doesn't mean that all the ideas are useless.  Mystified Oppression, especially in terms of the way women in the society have been rallied against their own interests, seems to be an idea well worthy of examination.

     One of the problems of Marxist theory, in line with some of the complaints folks were making earlier vis-a-vis the heavy-handedness of  the USSR, Red China, Cuba, et al, was the failure of "the withering-away-of-the-state."  Something, in straight English, was screwed with the Marxist theory.  Ultimately, the State was supposed to actually dissolve.  Clearly at least a very important part of the theory was wrong.

     I don't think Mystified Oppression was that part, though.  It's an idea worth looking at in the middle of discussions like this.
Seoulair
Senior Member
since 03-27-2008
Posts 776
Seoul S.Korea


28 posted 04-07-2008 10:45 PM       View Profile for Seoulair   Email Seoulair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Seoulair

quote:
It simply serves as a question designed to stir rancor.  In terms of communication theory it puts anyone so foolish as to attempt an answer into a "double bind."  Heads I win, tails you loose.


There is not buffer area between man and woman.  Woman wants some equal rights, which means that man has to give up some privileges. The issue is relevant to man so,  of course, man has a saying. And because man is dominant portion in policy making and domain in culture and bearing and forward surnames, it is a hard goal for woman.  

Think of the situation of woman in Afghanistan.

Fight, Lawsuit, escape and death is involved. Why don't they choose to yield and obey because of the name-ruin headline news?  And woman in Africa...those AIDS cases.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


29 posted 04-08-2008 12:56 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Seoulair,

          The situation you are talking about is straight from Game Theory, which is a branch of strategy.  It is called a Zero Sum game.  

     At its most basic level, any amount that one gets is denied to the other.

     The problem is that many more cases are identified as zero sum games than actually fit the definition of zero sum games.  It appears to me that you are attempting to define freedoms as a scarce resource.  That is, if you as a male have the freedom to run your life as you see fit in the home and the workplace, then somebody else, the women of the world, must give up their freedoms to support these freedoms.

     How do you convince the women of the world that they think this is a great thing for them?  You might see a bit of my poorly worked out note on Mystified Oppression in the thread above.  

     What YOU need is the new magic ingredient, Mystified Oppression.  It helps keep those people you want to have under your thumb RIGHT THERE, under your thumb, happy to be there, and trying to find room to wiggle into the same place.  Get some new improved Mystified Oppression today!

     (Apparently brought to you by the same swell folks who're trying to bring you the New improved Clean Coal!)
Seoulair
Senior Member
since 03-27-2008
Posts 776
Seoul S.Korea


30 posted 04-08-2008 01:48 AM       View Profile for Seoulair   Email Seoulair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Seoulair

quote:
The situation you are talking about is straight from Game Theory, which is a branch of strategy.  It is called a Zero Sum game.

No. This is not that simple. It is not as simple as the sign on Korea's national flag.
which is even better description than the zero sum game.

quote:
At its most basic level, any amount that one gets is denied to the other.

Not deny. but to give up what he should not have at the beginning. (not right, but privileges)

quote:
It appears to me that you are attempting to define freedoms as a scarce resource.

no. Here I make myself clear one more time. It is one of the human right.

quote:
That is, if you as a male have the freedom to run your life as you see fit in the home and the workplace, then somebody else, the women of the world, must give up their freedoms to support these freedoms.

Why does this sound surprise for you?

quote:
How do you convince the women of the world that they think this is a great thing for them?

Women talk for themselves. They don't need to be convince by anything. Their feelings have voices.

quote:
What YOU need is the new magic ingredient, Mystified Oppression.  It helps keep those people you want to have under your thumb RIGHT THERE, under your thumb, happy to be there, and trying to find room to wiggle into the same place.  Get some new improved Mystified Oppression today!


I have never liked the idea of labeling people's behave or social behave in poorly, unrealistically defined psychological terms.
For the last 30 years, they are like food supplement and the by-product of human fitness activity.  Psychology is not able to  give a throughly analysis of single person's behave. Then to describe a whole society with a baseless term? I see it as a joke.
    
Woman's equal right is a very realistic issue, esp in employment area, education area and policy-making area.  
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


31 posted 04-08-2008 04:23 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

1)

There are zero sum games and non-zero sum games.  Here is a two paragraph link that gives a fast and dirty explanation so we know we're talking about the same thing.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ZESUGAM.html

     The two tactics could be roughly broken down into competitive—zero sum—approaches and cooperative—or non-zero-sum—approaches.  From my observation of your postings so far on this thread you seem to be suggesting that you see things pretty much in a zero sum way.  That is, anything that women get is probably something you will have to give up.  Is this correct?  Am I seeing this accurately?  Or am I misunderstanding the point you're trying to get across here?

2)  Seoulair here quotes BobK:

quote:
:
That is, if you as a male have the freedom to run your life as you see fit in the home and the workplace, then somebody else, the women of the world, must give up their freedoms to support these freedoms.



And now Seoulair responds to the statement by BobK that he has excerpted, above:

quote:

Why does this sound surprise for you?



     Well, yes.  Yes it does.  I am surprised that you would think, without questioning your assumption, that you would be more worthy than more than half the other people in the world.  I'm certain you're a fine fellow, but I think that if you imagine your gender entitles you to the automatic surrender of the same rights you enjoy without a protest from the women's section of the planet but also from a significant part of the men's side of the planet, you're possibly off on the wrong track.

     Why would you expect the women of the world to go along with that?  Do you think that the ones who do now will continue to do so in the future, and that their numbers will multiply?  What is the basis for such thoughts?  The more women must work away from the home, the more obvious this becomes to them.  

     Any women or men who want to weigh in on this?  I don't want to be the only person who says anything here.  Maybe everybody else agrees with Seoulair.  Perhaps I should be surprised.  Are there any women other than Lady Tom still looking at this thread?

    
Seoulair
Senior Member
since 03-27-2008
Posts 776
Seoul S.Korea


32 posted 04-08-2008 01:20 PM       View Profile for Seoulair   Email Seoulair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Seoulair

quote:
There are zero sum games and non-zero sum games.  Here is a two paragraph link that gives a fast and dirty explanation so we know we're talking about the same thing.

Yes, we read the same thing. I carefully google-ed every thing you mentioned.

quote:
The two tactics could be roughly broken down into competitive—zero sum—approaches and cooperative—or non-zero-sum—approaches.


Still, single term is not enough to describe a group's behave. As in a simple domestic situation...a mirage can't be defined as Zero-sum-game or non zero-sum game. A nuclear family of 5 children, either wife be the desperate  housewife or husband give up football time to watch baby or play with children.  If the husband don't want to give up TV time, then he can find other way to help if he thinks that he definitely have a share of the duty. (only if he does not think in the traditional way)

quote:
anything that women get is probably something you will have to give up.  Is this correct?  Am I seeing this accurately?  Or am I misunderstanding the point you're trying to get across here?


If you press me to give you a yes answer, then I have to say "yes", there is time to return borrowed stuff.

quote:
Well, yes.  Yes it does.  I am surprised that you would think, without questioning your assumption, that you would be more worthy than more than half the other people in the world.  I'm certain you're a fine fellow,

Accepted.

quote:
but I think that if you imagine your gender entitles you to the automatic surrender of the same rights you enjoy without a protest from the women's section of the planet but also from a significant part of the men's side of the planet, you're possibly off on the wrong track.

I was not talking Martian invading Venus or Vice versa. You can not neglect the traditional view and rule of man.  I can's say that it has been fair in some area.


quote:
The more women must work away from the home, the more obvious this becomes to them.

To make it simple, working outside and working at home make no difference on woman's right. Unless the work effort has been fairly viewed, paid, and acknowledged  by boss or husband or everyone else including some women).  

And you are very smart.
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


33 posted 04-08-2008 03:47 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

quote:
When you ask a rhetorical question you need to tell us it's a rhetorical question, Edward. Otherwise, people might try to answer it.


It wasn't a rhetorical question, Ron. The whole point of this discussion was to answer, "Is feminism a good thing?" I responded to that with another question, one I thought to be legitimate. Questioning what's wrong with something is usually a good way to uncover whether or not it has good qualities, at least in my mind.

quote:
Source, please?


Source? You need a source to know the damaging effects of Communism in a government? Do you know who Stalin was, Ron?

quote:
Think commune and hippies. The goal of communism has nothing to do with government at all. It's about people cooperating with people instead of competing against each other all the time.


Yeah, I think I know what communism is, Ron. I'm not as witless as you may think.

I wasn't referring to the ideology of Communism but rather the type of government. And I really think it's a long shot to say government has nothing to do with it.

quote:
Communism clearly has gotten a really bad rap (at least in the West), not because its goals are evil, but because people don't always separate goals from methods.


I agree. Communism as an ideology isn't particularly wrong, it's pretty fantastic and unrealistic, but Communism when utilized by a government is a completely different matter. I can't think of one example where Communism was a positive lasting force in a government. I just can't find anything good about giving a government total control.


I love how these discussions never stick to the actual topic. You bring up women's rights and somehow the motives of Karl Marx becomes the focus, hahaha.

Have a good day, Ron.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert E.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


34 posted 04-08-2008 05:30 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     I'm a bit vague on this, Ed.    
    
     Repression is apparently welcome wherever it shows its friendly face.  Right or left both seem to keep a spare bedroom fitted out in case repression wants to call and needs someplace to stay.  It's a generous houseguest and brings gifts for those in power, whoever they might be.

     There are folks in Russia who miss the good old days when Stalin kept a firm hand on things.  I knew a lady when I was growing up in Ohio who kept telling me what a nice, firm, generous and safe man Hitler really was.

     I'm still steamed at the Political Science professor who was nice enough to tell me that historically totalitarian governments had always emerged out of Democracies.
He pointed out the Kerinsky government in Russia and the Weimar Republic in Germany.  I figured out the business around the French Revolution myself.

     Feminism, though?  Where are the women in this thread if we're actually talking about Feminism?  Or are we talking about something else, causing the women to migrate elsewhere?  Where is the actual cross-gender discussion?

Seoulair
Senior Member
since 03-27-2008
Posts 776
Seoul S.Korea


35 posted 04-08-2008 06:33 PM       View Profile for Seoulair   Email Seoulair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Seoulair

quote:
There are folks in Russia who miss the good old days when Stalin kept a firm hand on things.  I knew a lady when I was growing up in Ohio who kept telling me what a nice, firm, generous and safe man Hitler really was.

Doesn't surprise me. Where they got milk where they call motherhood.

About this thread: Essorant started it with a kind of bias.  Ron led it to side way, and Bob K brought in social psychology. where it should go? Mr. Grim?  
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


36 posted 04-08-2008 07:27 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

quote:
Where are the women in this thread if we're actually talking about Feminism? Where is the actual cross-gender discussion?


Well Bob, just going on Hush's reaction alone:

quote:
Seriously?

I don't think I even have the effort in me to address everything inaccurate and or offensive/annoying in this thread...


I honestly think the female members might be offended by the question. I imagine it would be the same thing as asking if the civil rights movement is a good thing. I very much doubt that the African American members would be too willing to debate such a ridiculous question.

Just my two cents...

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert E.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


37 posted 04-09-2008 02:39 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Ed,

quote:
Unfortunately Ess, women were once considered inferior to men and something obviously had to be done about that, hence feminism.



Women were perhaps considered inferior at doing what men were usually doing, but only because they were considered superior at doing what women were.  That is, maintaining their own womanly traditions, something they are hardly allowed to do today, when people always treat them as if they need to equal whatever men are doing.


I don't think women argued and regretted that most of their mothers were not politicians and warriors instead of good homemakers.  Much more pleasant is the thought that they probably took pride in what their mothers did and took pride in carrying on the womanly tradition with strength, instead of trying to parallel whatever men were doing.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


38 posted 04-09-2008 03:20 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Essorant,

           Men speculating about the way women thought in the good old days when women weren't politicians has always seemed a difficult position.  No matter how accurate the speculations may be, they always sound somewhat self-serving.  And when you look at some of the 18th Century literature—Mary Wollstonecraft come to mind—the feminist yearnings sound to my ear somewhat different than you portray them.

     I suspect many of us create the ancestors we wish we'd had, one way or another, near term or long; and for that matter for either good or ill.  It used to be in axiomatic in psychoanalytic psychotherapy that if the patient wanted to focus on the past, you should focus on the here-and-now, and that if the patient was preoccupied with the here-and-now you should try to focus on the past.  The point was that the patient constructed same life experience using either material to support the same conclusions, and you should go with where the hidden affect was.  

     It didn't mean that the logic from either the past or the present justified the conclusions or the life that was built on them, right?

     Once again, I miss the active presence of women to check these speculations.  I feel half the conversation is absent.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


39 posted 04-09-2008 05:01 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Women were perhaps considered inferior at doing what men were usually doing, but only because they were considered superior at doing what women were (sic).  That is, maintaining their own womanly traditions, something they are hardly allowed to do today, when people always treat them as if they need to equal whatever men are doing.

Do you really think feminism is about identical roles, Essorant? I rather thought it was about identical rights. Which, of course, includes the right to choose our own role.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


40 posted 04-09-2008 10:26 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Bob,

quote:
Men speculating about the way women thought in the good old days when women weren't politicians has always seemed a difficult position.


Not necessarily.  Why would such a strong tradition among women come about, if women themselves didn't support and believe in what they were doing?  Why is it so hard to imagine that women actually took pride in their own traditions?   And why should they not still take pride in what women did and continue to do when it is virtuous?  My problem is when people treat the past as if women were somehow imprisoned by masculine hands into not being politicians, tyrants, and warriors.  The reason women were less involved in what men were doing is simply because they were more involved in what women were doing.    


Ron,


quote:
Do you really think feminism is about identical roles, Essorant? I rather thought it was about identical rights. Which, of course, includes the right to choose our own role.


Not always.  But there is much more than a dictionary definition to feminism.  There are many extremisms, and bad mentalities that are formed in some people's manners.  I wasn't trying to project what I was saying as all "feminism", but I do believe it is an image and attitude that often comes along with certain kinds of feminism today.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


41 posted 04-09-2008 11:55 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
There are many extremisms, and bad mentalities that are formed in some people's manners.

There are extremisms and bad mentalities formed for just about everything, Ess, from religion to democracy to marriage. Those, however, as already discussed, reflect the methods that people use, not the goals they are pursuing.

And I'm sorry, but like Bob, I'm not quite willing to accept that YOU know the reasons women of the past accepted the roles they accepted, nor am I willing to believe that all or even a significant majority wanted what you apparently think they wanted. I will, however, give you this: I agree there was and is nothing wrong with the more traditional female role. But only so long as it's a choice and not an assumption.
Seoulair
Senior Member
since 03-27-2008
Posts 776
Seoul S.Korea


42 posted 04-09-2008 12:10 PM       View Profile for Seoulair   Email Seoulair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Seoulair

quote:
I agree there was and is nothing wrong with the more traditional female role.

Who wants to define traditional female role?
quote:
But only so long as it's a choice and not an assumption.

choice....whose choice? man's? woman's? in-law's? or by culture or religion?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


43 posted 04-09-2008 12:55 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
I agree there was and is nothing wrong with the more traditional female role.  But only so long as its a choice


Ron, I agree.  But I also believe that when women try to be exactly the same as men (as far as their roles go, particularly in the family) leads to trouble.  I think that there is a maternal nature that makes the woman primarily responsible for rearing her children, and not placing her career first.  That doesn't mean that husbands don't have an important role.  (though sadly many of them don't practice it)  It does mean that when society accepts that both parents work full time, and wives are not primarily dedicated to personally rearing children first and foremost (though no one is saying a woman should never work outside the home, my own wife is also a Registered Nurse who works part time) , we will reap the bad results.  And I believe we have begun to see this bad outcome since this social experiment of the 60s - 70s.  There are of course always exceptions to the rule (sometimes mothers MUST work full time), but that's not what I'm talking about.  I am talking about a widespread disregarding of the propriety of motherhood being a woman's first vocation if she happens to be one.  

I am only opposed to feminism when it attempts to obscure the complimentary uniqueness of men and women, denying their differences.  And yes, I'm aware that such "differences" can be used to justify some pretty poor things.  But I think that the denial of such differences is just as risky as exploiting them.  Otherwise I think that many of the results of feminism have been good and healthy.

And please, don't think I'm here to unduly criticize women.  I'm actually slow to speak on this since I would much rather focus on the forsaken responsibilities of many husbands and fathers, who can best be described as "absentee" even while present in their own homes.    


Stephen      
Seoulair
Senior Member
since 03-27-2008
Posts 776
Seoul S.Korea


44 posted 04-09-2008 12:55 PM       View Profile for Seoulair   Email Seoulair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Seoulair

Traditional female role of my dream
12am-5am    a night of good sleep and tending crying baby and other in-law's requirement.
5-6am   prepare breakfast, husband' tie, suits, polish shoes, suitcase, warm up cars, or led out the horse.
6-7am  tending family breakfast,hug/kiss goodbye to everyone.
7-8am    bedroom clean time and ventilation time
8-8:30am   her breakfast and beauty time.
8:30--11:30am  house clean, shopping, Garden,domestic animals  and in-law's.
11:30-12:30am  cook lunch and folding laundry
12:30-2:30am   knitting, sewing, prepare snack  for children, domestic animals,
2:30-5:00pm  children's homework, sports and handling endless siblings fighting and all mischievous, spilled milk, painted wall, broken glass and bleeding cuts and a load of dirty clothes.
5-8:00pm   cooking dinner, setting up the table serve dinner, clean table, wash dishes and vacuum  the floor and clean up the kitchen. Feed and clean domestic animals and plus listen to HB's complaining about work.boss/colleagues and comfort him. Give a after-dinner massage while praising him.
8-9pm  pre-bed reading stories to children.
9-9:30pm   children-to bed.
9:-11pm   doing laundries and tenderly ask  HB to lower TV volume X10
11:12am   folding laundry and pray for the whole family.

I will be happy in such a well served life.
And Ron as you wish, they have no time for poem or PIP.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


45 posted 04-09-2008 02:16 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Who wants to define traditional female role?

It seems to work best, I think, when each person defines their own role.

quote:
choice....whose choice? man's? woman's? in-law's? or by culture or religion?

Uh? That it's a personal choice is pretty much implied by the language?

quote:
It does mean that when society accepts that both parents work full time, and wives are not primarily dedicated to personally rearing children first and foremost ... we will reap the bad results.

I'll agree completely, Stephen, if you'll change the phrase "wives are" to "someone is." Like you, I believe that raising a child, at least for the first five years, is a full-time job. I don't think it necessarily has to be the woman and, if feminism had its way, the socio-economic pressure wouldn't continue to privilege one gender over the other. If you and your wife switched roles, would your combined income remain the same? The fact that men typically make more than women in exactly the same job is a definite factor in determining who stays home the most, I think.

BTW, when my last child was born I spent a full year playing the full-time-daddy role. Maternal nature, Stephen? If more men tried it, I suspect we'd start calling it human nature. It was probably one of the greatest experiences of my life.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


46 posted 04-09-2008 02:55 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

quote:
There are extremisms and bad mentalities formed for just about everything, Ess, from religion to democracy to marriage. Those, however, as already discussed, reflect the methods that people use, not the goals they are pursuing.


I agree Ron.  But the good intention of the archer means little when his arrows start being shot in men's direction.  When that happens, it is hard to keep the topic on the "good goals" of the archer instead of equipping oneself with a defense against the arrows!

Seoulair
Senior Member
since 03-27-2008
Posts 776
Seoul S.Korea


47 posted 04-09-2008 03:21 PM       View Profile for Seoulair   Email Seoulair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Seoulair

quote:
It seems to work best, I think, when each person defines their own role.

Woman is not isolated living in desert. and If there are choices there are options. And those options is based on practical matters which can be proper or not.

quote:
Uh? That it's a personal choice is pretty much implied by the language?

I take this as you agree that woman chooses your role for you in this world.  

quote:
Like you, I believe that raising a child, at least for the first five years, is a full-time job.

Wrong. It is a  Nanny's full time's job. Mother does much more beyond  your "full time" concept.
quote:
I don't think it necessarily has to be the woman

see, how you want to define woman's role.
quote:
If you and your wife switched roles, would your combined income remain the same? The fact that men typically make more than women in exactly the same job is a definite factor in determining who stays home the most, I think.

You did noticed the unfairness.      

quote:
when my last child was born I spent a full year playing the full-time-daddy role.

I'll print this down in case you revise it later. ( then I shall say, you lied.)

quote:
Maternal nature, Stephen? If more men tried it, I suspect we'd start calling it human nature.

Penguin does this though.  


And I am glad that Stethen was not forced to quote Proverb 31.  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2031:10-30&version=31;
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


48 posted 04-09-2008 07:40 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

[
quote:

Essorant:
Not necessarily.  Why would such a strong tradition among women come about, if women themselves didn't support and believe in what they were doing?


     There is no room for a decent answer here; nor can I write prose well enough to keep people's attention focused for that length of time.  I will try a short answer, knowing even I will be dissatisfied.
     1) You make an assumption when you say that it is "a strong tradition among women."  The assumption is that it is a tradition originated by women, maintained by women, and happily carried into the future by women AND ONLY WOMEN.  Not true.  The traditions were cultural and cross-gendered.  

     I cannot speak to the utility of such tradition while humans were strictly hunter-gatherers and lived in small somewhat genetically isolated bands.  It does seem that the closer societies seem to be to that situation, the more strictly they maintain such conventions.  There may be reasons for this.  If anybody knows, please fill me in.

          However, after people settled down in cities, one of the first things that show up in written records are attempt to come up with contraceptive formulas.  I've seen examples going back to Egypt, and they keep pace with the growth of civilization.  Women, pretty much from the beginning of recorded history, have sought control over their reproductive lives, to limit the role of mothering to times and partners of their choice.

     The customs in these societies were at odds with these wishes.  We know mostly about people who were written about.  But daughters seem to have been commodities.  Mothers probably cooperated in making these marriages, though, truthfully, I don't know for sure.  In most modern arranged marriages they seem to.  You can call this taking pride in a tradition or Stockholm Syndrome or—my current favorite—Mystified Oppression.  


2)
quote:


Why is it so hard to imagine that women actually took pride in their own traditions?

  

     Circumcision in some cultures is still occasion for a blow-out party.  Geza Roheim, the Hungarian psychoanalytically-trained anthropologist, filmed a rite of sub-incision, a male rite of passage for one group of bushmen in Australia that was a matter of intense pride for those who took part in the ritual.  It has been used to show college student volunteers undergoing aversion-training.  Most can't sit through it.  The bushmen though this the height of virtue.  So do the women today in Egypt who perform female circumcision.  Many of them have had the ritual performed on them in their time.  (I put in here another plug for the notion of Mystified Oppression.)

     It is, in other words, not at all difficult to imagine the women taking pride in their traditions.  Nor is it difficult for me to believe they could believe their traditions to be virtuous.  Nor is it difficult to believe that some of them may actually be virtuous.  Now, if only we could come to some stable understanding of virtue.  

3)
quote:

  My problem is when people treat the past as if women were somehow imprisoned by masculine hands into not being politicians, tyrants, and warriors.



     Alas for all of us, not only by male hands.  It's always so much easier when there's a convenient baddie to blame.  Men are as caught up in the system here as are women.

4)
quote:

The reason women were less involved in what men were doing is simply because they were more involved in what women were doing.    



     The word "simply" drags a lot of weight here.  If a woman decided not to do a lot of the things that women were doing—raise kids, do her own housework, care for family—she would have difficulty.  It would be the exceptional woman indeed who might venture into the world of male enterprise and make her own money and create a life that would be as satisfactory as that of a man.  She wouldn't be able to vote, own her own property or make the majority of her own legally binding decisions.  In some countries she could be married against her will in a legally binding ceremony and all her assets could be taken over by the new "husband."

     In short, Essorant, there is actually plenty to be upset about, should upset be your thing.

     My opinion is that it's pretty tough being straightforward, kind and real with each other in the here and now.  In England, I was surprised and happy to find they don't celebrate Mothers' Day, but instead a "Mothering Day."  Most of the glory still goes to good old Mom, of course, but you get to understand that mothering is a human function and that anybody can help out anyone with a little decency at any time.

     And yes, men and women are built different, not just visibly, but in the head as well.  I was around through that there's no difference between men and women routine in the sixties and seventies, and boy do lots of sociologists feels a little bit funny now.  But I wouldn't give up any of it.  I got to talk to a lot of people, men and women both, about who they thought they were and what their gender had to do with it, and I don't think things are anywhere near as open and frank now as they were then.

     I feel really unsettled when I see anything wearing an Answer costume walking around.  I start wondering whose Masked Ball I'm attending, and what I'm going to have to deal with at midnight.  But maybe that's just me.  

  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


49 posted 04-12-2008 10:11 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron:
quote:
I'll agree completely, Stephen, if you'll change the phrase "wives are" to "someone is." Like you, I believe that raising a child, at least for the first five years, is a full-time job. I don't think it necessarily has to be the woman ...

Maternal nature, Stephen? If more men tried it, I suspect we'd start calling it human nature. It was probably one of the greatest experiences of my life.



I'm not at all trying to belittle your experience as a stay-at-home Dad, or anyone else's that doesn't fit traditional ideas about gender roles.  I just happen to think there's more to the traditional gender roles than just tradition.  I think, generally speaking, that women are wired (physically and psychologically) in such a way that makes them the primary caregiver of children among parents.  It's no string of evolutionary accidents that women happen to give childbirth, breastfeed, and are endowed with more estrogen and less testosterone.  Likewise I think men are "wired" in such a way that makes the role of provider and protector more suitable for them.  Unlike some, I hold no suspicion that this tendency is just some conditioned bias due to a long history of patriarchal domination.  

Now having stated what I believe to be a fundamental telos concerning gender ... I will add that this doesn't rule out or vilify exceptions.  The single mother who is forced to fill in for an absentee Father (whether present in the home or not) is a remarkable and noble exception to the rule.  Likewise a Father who is occupied mainly at home and rears the children while the wife works (due to financial necessity perhaps) is honorable.  But exceptions do not eradicate rules.  And so, I don't think the successes of any instances involving a switch of traditional gender roles, should imply that we are to chalk the old views up to mere bias, and render gender as superfluous in society or the home.  There is a differentiation involved with "Mom" and "Dad".  They are not simply two of a kind.  They are unique and wonderfully specified, not only as individuals, but as men and women.


Stephen        

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (04-12-2008 11:15 PM).]

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Feminism   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors