Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacob :))
    For this example I never said I'd go around enforcing my opinion or even mentioning it. It would not effect anyone anymore than other reasons I'm attracted or unattracted to girls.

    And as part of the larger problem it works both ways.
    But you would. You've said that you'd want your wife to do "feminine" jobs around the house, and if one of you had to stay home with a kid, it should really be her. That'd be enforcing your view.

    You've said that you'd want your wife to act in specific ways. Girls do not act "ladylike" all the time. No girl does that, trust me. So you'd want her to do something completely out of her usual behavior.

    Explain what you mean by the works both ways part of your message please.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick1sHere)
    What a concise and intriguing argument. Ah well, I guess I was expecting too much from someone who appears to think that feminists are such a terrible thing. :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    But you would. You've said that you'd want your wife to do "feminine" jobs around the house, and if one of you had to stay home with a kid, it should really be her. That'd be enforcing your view.

    You've said that you'd want your wife to act in specific ways. Girls do not act "ladylike" all the time. No girl does that, trust me. So you'd want her to do something completely out of her usual behavior.

    Explain what you mean by the works both ways part of your message please.
    First I thought we were just talking about the swearing part when it comes to enforcing. And I wouldn't want to enforce anything on my wife just encourage.

    Secondly you can be ladylike all the time. Before you say what about when she farts its not about doing things like that its how you react.

    Finally there are dozens of double standards for men in our society. Here's a clear one:

    If a in a nightclub a girl slaps a guy on the face she would face no reprucussions. Practically everyone would think the guy must have been being a **** to deserve it.

    If in a night club a guy slapped a girl in the face he would be kicked out, possible beaten up, arrested and turned into a social pariah.

    How, if we are all equal, is that fair?
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick1sHere)
    The majority of feminists don't want equality, they want superiority and special treatment. At the end of the day, sloots gon sloot
    If a person believes that women should be/are superior to men, they're a sexist, not a feminist. A feminist cannot believe in female supremacy by definition.

    That's not to say that some women claiming to be feminists will not say that. But by definition and in action, they're liars.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    i suppose it is sexist to think that your wife should stay at home instead of you and act ladylike, you're certainly not the only one who thinks this though, it's pretty engrained into society.

    Why does anyone have to stay at home and look after children full-time? other than maternity leave, my mother has always worked throughout my brother and i's childhood

    the situation you describe is common anyway though, it does seem to be the mother that does most of the household duties like cooking/cleaning etc
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What a load of rubbish.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lexi99)
    To be honest I sometimes find it frustrating when man does something for me im perfectly capable of doing but is just trying to be a gentleman. I understand that he is 'only trying to be nice' but it does send the message that 'aww you're just a girl, you cant do things, here let me do it for you'.
    That is not the message he is trying to send at all. If he didn't think you were capable of opening a door, for example, and he decided to open it for you, then the gesture is meaningless. It's the very fact he knows you can do but still chooses to do it for you that gives the gesture meaning.

    He is trying to be a gentleman. I realise in this day and age that's probably a crime.


    'Second Wave feminism' of the 1960s onwards has totally distorted and blurred the lines between genuine anti-woman views that were more commonly held back towards the start of the 1900s with common courtesy and gender-assigned social etiquette (like opening doors, pulling out chairs etc).

    We have become, and are increasingly becoming even moreso, a society of completely socially asexual drones.
    It's no wonder so many of these 'feminist' types are mentally confused. Their is a battle going on in their minds between their natural feminine nature and this alien and artificial "feminist" ideology that they've been unfortunate enough to be hoodwinked into. It's one of the reasons many of these radical feminist are into submission-orientated sexual practises. It's the only time when they allow themselves to bring down the mental barrier of 'feminism' and actual embrace womanhood, and the result is a desire for sexual practises which are more submissive than normal.

    The fact is there ARE differences between the genders - mental as well as physical - and these should be recognised, not ignored or socially-engineered out of us.

    'Feminism' - that is to say 'Second Wave feminism' of the 1960s onwards and not the 'Women's rights' movements of earlier decades - is about as anti-female as it gets. You don't get much more anti-female than teaching women to deny their own nature.

    As Del Boy once said: 'A bloke wants a woman to be a woman and a woman wants a bloke to be a bloke.' (or words very close to that affect).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steve1989)
    That is not the message he is trying to send at all. If he didn't think you were capable of opening a door, for example, and he decided to open it for you, then the gesture is meaningless. It's the very fact he knows you can do but still chooses to do it for you that gives the gesture meaning.

    He is trying to be a gentleman. I realise in this day and age that's probably a crime.


    'Second Wave feminism' of the 1960s onwards has totally distorted and blurred the lines between genuine anti-woman views that were more commonly held back towards the start of the 1900s with common courtesy and gender-assigned social etiquette (like opening doors, pulling out chairs etc).

    We have become, and are increasingly becoming even moreso, a society of completely socially asexual drones.
    It's no wonder so many of these 'feminist' types are mentally confused. Their is a battle going on in their minds between their natural feminine nature and this alien and artificial "feminist" ideology that they've been unfortunate enough to be hoodwinked into. It's one of the reasons many of these radical feminist are into submission-orientated sexual practises. It's the only time when they allow themselves to bring down the mental barrier of 'feminism' and actual embrace womanhood, and the result is a desire for sexual practises which are more submissive than normal.

    The fact is there ARE differences between the genders - mental as well as physical - and these should be recognised, not ignored or socially-engineered out of us.

    'Feminism' - that is to say 'Second Wave feminism' of the 1960s onwards and not the 'Women's rights' movements of earlier decades - is about as anti-female as it gets. You don't get much more anti-female than teaching women to deny their own nature.

    As Del Boy once said: 'A bloke wants a woman to be a woman and a woman wants a bloke to be a bloke.' (or words very close to that affect).
    "Asexual drones", hardly. While we still have steroid-infused, pig-ignorant men and ditsy airheads in skimpy clothing solely for the purpose of pandering to them, I doubt we'd get that far.

    Feminism isn't at all about wiping out femininity or anything of the sort, it's about freedom of choice and being free to be who you want to be, whether it's a bald-headed martial artist who swears like a sailor, or a softly-spoken, stay at home mother. Embracing womenhood is encouraged in all areas, but "womenhood" is not one specific ideal with particular traits - there are all different kinds of women, and it's embracing themselves as a woman no matter what kind of woman they are. It's insulting of you to think we're all similar and denying our "biological urges" to put on dresses and raise children and be dominated by men - we're all different, some of us have no interest in that life and find it borderline oppressive when some pig tells us what we should or shouldn't want or do. Feminism is about choice, and being allowed, as a woman, to be whatever the hell you want to be and still be called as such without having to put up with society's expectations or stigma.

    Women don't want "manly men", they want someone to love and accept them for who they are - just as men do, if I'm not mistaken.

    The OP is a sexist git if he thinks ironing, hoovering and the like are "feminine" jobs for women - we don't live in the 50s, for christ's sake. Nor should anything to do with cars and garbage be considered "manly" tasks, it's that kind of ******** gender stereotyping I'm talking about that's blatantly sexist.
    Swearing is "aggressive" and "vulgar" - what, because women should be soft little bunnies who won't confront you and end up hurting your little fragile male ego? You sound extremely insecure.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacob :))
    Got a couple of things and I wonder if they're considered sexist:

    Women swearing: I generally find it very unattractive as I find swearing aggressive and vulgar which I don't think are attractive traits for a woman to have.

    Gender specific tasks: In a marridge I would prefer that we sticked to gender defined household tasks. I would clean the car, take out rubbish, mow the lawn etc while my wife would iron, Hoover etc. This isn't just because I wouldn't want to do 'feminine' jobs but I wouldn't want my wife doing 'masculine' ones that are more dirty and physically hard because if she was I would feel like I wasn't being a good husband by making her from such un lady like tasks.

    Staying home with the baby: I would work because I would want to provide for my wife and baby. I wouldn't feel like a good husband if I allowed my wife to work while I looked after the baby.

    I know these views are old fashioned and I wouldn't enforce them with an iron fist but are they sexist? Is wanting to provide for and protect your wife sexist? Is wanting a lady to act feminine sexist?
    It is sexist but unless you actually enforced these views on her there's no reason it should be a problem. The main issue here I think would be you wanting to be the breadwinner while she did childcare, as a lot of women are more career driven now.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacob :))
    I'm not saying anyone HAS to do anything. This is just what I'd want for my wife or girlfriend because that's what I'd find attractive.

    I've never said it was wrong!
    The problem for me is that you seem not to realise is that it's just not cool to say things are 'ladylike' and so on. We've moved past the point where people are desperately clinging to gender roles and stereotypes. By saying swearing isn't ladylike and that women shouldn't do it you're being prescriptive and offensive. People can behave any way they want, it doesn't make them less of a man or a woman and they shouldn't be viewed as such. Disliking swearing in a partner is something else entirely (it can come off as overly aggressive, which I don't like in a partner either).

    Everything you said in your opening post is fine, as long as you realise that it's just a case of you needing to find a woman for whom that life arrangement fits into her own expectations and desires. It's the fact that you don't seem to get that there will most likely be compromises to be made with any woman you find yourself in a relationship with and that they should be just that - compromises. Your partner should be too important to you for you to feel the need to hold onto your desire to wash the car or not do the ironing. This kind of stuff should pale into insignificance.

    If it's a case of you feeling you'd be doing the right and respectable thing by being determined to be the provider, that's fine, but only if your partner's desires can influence that. As long as everyone in the relationship feels like their needs and wants are being heard and they can decide to do things without the other party's baseless clinging to traditional roles forming some giant obstacle, even if the things they decide to do conflict with those ideas to an extent, then it seems fine to me.

    Tl;dr - I think you just lack experience in relationships and are approaching it from an overly egotistical viewpoint because of that. What you think is important will probably change quite a bit once the person you love wants/needs something that conflicts with your preconceptions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IlexBlue)
    "Asexual drones", hardly. While we still have steroid-infused, pig-ignorant men and ditsy airheads in skimpy clothing solely for the purpose of pandering to them, I doubt we'd get that far.
    I agree with this. But the problems with both of these things aren't 'feminism' related. We didn't have this problem you mentioned in the 1950s or before, for example, and yet we still had clear differences between men and women and how they interacted. For example swearing in front of a woman was considered pretty bad form.

    (Original post by IlexBlue)
    Feminism isn't at all about wiping out femininity or anything of the sort, it's about freedom of choice and being free to be who you want to be, whether it's a bald-headed martial artist who swears like a sailor, or a softly-spoken, stay at home mother. Embracing womenhood is encouraged in all areas, but "womenhood" is not one specific ideal with particular traits - there are all different kinds of women, and it's embracing themselves as a woman no matter what kind of woman they are. It's insulting of you to think we're all similar and denying our "biological urges" to put on dresses and raise children and be dominated by men - we're all different, some of us have no interest in that life and find it borderline oppressive when some pig tells us what we should or shouldn't want or do. Feminism is about choice, and being allowed, as a woman, to be whatever the hell you want to be and still be called as such without having to put up with society's expectations or stigma.
    This, I'm afraid, is simply what Second Wave feminism masks itself as.

    The 'Women's Rights' movement was a genuine drive for some fundamental rights. The 1960s Feminism drive was about destroying the Nuclear Family and creating a rift between men and women. It has done that perfectly.

    On the one hand we have a culture of easy free sex where, as you said above, women are walking round in skimpy clothing looking to get laid and men who are not after commitment and simply want fun, while on the other hand marriage rates are falling, divorce rates are increasing and birth rates are way down. I believe the birth rate of Brits - excluding immigrant origin communities - is down to something like 1.4. In the 1950s it was somewhere around 3.0-3.5.

    What this means is for every two British people they are only producing 1.4 children. That means we are declining in numbers. In any society this is considered a dire problem.

    Second Wave feminism has been an unmitigated disaster for not just our country but for much of the Western world. It certainly has not made women happier, it has certainly made men unhappier and our entire society has suffered greatly as a result.

    (Original post by IlexBlue)
    Women don't want "manly men", they want someone to love and accept them for who they are - just as men do, if I'm not mistaken.
    You are mistaken. I think you have a distorted idea of what constitutes a 'manly' man. That doesn't mean a thuggish unfeeling brute - you're thinking of the 'laddish culture' thing. Have a look at some of the old black and white films, they were full of manly men who fully loved their partners.

    (Original post by IlexBlue)
    The OP is a sexist git if he thinks ironing, hoovering and the like are "feminine" jobs for women - we don't live in the 50s, for christ's sake. Nor should anything to do with cars and garbage be considered "manly" tasks, it's that kind of bull**** gender stereotyping I'm talking about that's blatantly sexist
    This is something else that 1960s feminism has done - it has made a womans traditional gender role seem feeble and worthless. The bearing and raising of children, however, is the single most important task for society. It's remarkable that feminism has managed to demean it so.

    Apparently the feminists believe that being "chained to the kitchen sink" and "barefoot and pregnant" (neither of these are a reality) is what we want women for while men are off in the wide world having wonderful adventures with the Wood Elves. The fact is we're either laying bricks, painting ceilings, at a desk, driving a taxi, at a computer etc etc. There is nothing that good about the world of work. It's a place where the vast majority of people are not particularly happy, they just do it for the money.
    But still if you believe that being a 'slave to your employer' is SO much better than being a 'slave to your husband' then carry on.

    The fact is - and you're not going to like this - our gender roles are not "social constructs" given to us by oppressive men of yesteryear. The feminists - and Marxists too - will tell you that gender roles are simply constructs of society and were created by men. WRONG.

    Evolution has, for hundreds of thousands of years - if not a few million years - given us our gender roles. Go right back to tribal times and you'll find men doing the hunting and protecting while women do the bearing and raising of children and taking care of the domestic side of things.
    This is how we have always been.

    A bunch of men didn't wake up one morning and decide: "we're now going to create a system where we oppress women and keep them at home."

    This is why physically men are larger and stronger than women, to fill the demands required of their gender role.

    Now, on the other hand, we've finally created a civilisation where these gender roles do not need to be so pronounced and rigid. That does NOT mean, however, we should abandon them completely and consign them to history.
    Women, because of the nature of society, can now go out and get educated, have a job, have a career etc. That's fine. BUT it has now gone TOO far. Our civilisation itself is suffering because of it. See the problems I mentioned above - marriage, divorce, birth rates etc.

    I think we need to try and find a happy medium between the overly rigid 1950s way of life and the far too laissez faire and destructive way of present day society. That means women willing to be housewives and stay-at-home mothers at least while they're having children and the children are young. Say between the ages of 25-35. Before that and for the many years after that they can pursue whatever they like. Though it would be ideal if they could stick to part time work while the children are still in school. But it certainly doesn't all rest of women. In light of this men need to change their outlook away from the 'laddish culture' and more towards commitment and provider for his wife and children.

    Hopefully this way we can balance the academic and employment wishes of women with the demands of society - that is to say producing at least 3 well educated children in a family environment.

    (Original post by IlexBlue)
    Swearing is "aggressive" and "vulgar" - what, because women should be soft little bunnies who won't confront you and end up hurting your little fragile male ego? You sound extremely insecure.
    Swearing is vulgar regardless of who does it, that's true. However it IS worse when a female does it. Just like burping is vulgar but it's considered worse when a female does it. I realise you quite probably consider the idea of being 'ladylike' to be an oppressive relic of the past as well.

    Judging by the phraseology of your last comment it seems you're living in a feminist bubble. You've swallowed the feminist line and have learned it by rote.

    I do take some comfort in knowing that if things don't radically change then our society will keep on collapsing. Our society has gone down hill rapidly in the last 60 years - and certainly not just because of 1960s feminism but it plays a large part - and if we carry on as we are then by 2050 it will be far too late to do anything about it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steve1989)
    I agree with this. But the problems with both of these things aren't 'feminism' related. We didn't have this problem you mentioned in the 1950s or before, for example, and yet we still had clear differences between men and women and how they interacted. For example swearing in front of a woman was considered pretty bad form.



    This, I'm afraid, is simply what Second Wave feminism masks itself as.

    The 'Women's Rights' movement was a genuine drive for some fundamental rights. The 1960s Feminism drive was about destroying the Nuclear Family and creating a rift between men and women. It has done that perfectly.

    On the one hand we have a culture of easy free sex where, as you said above, women are walking round in skimpy clothing looking to get laid and men who are not after commitment and simply want fun, while on the other hand marriage rates are falling, divorce rates are increasing and birth rates are way down. I believe the birth rate of Brits - excluding immigrant origin communities - is down to something like 1.4. In the 1950s it was somewhere around 3.0-3.5.

    What this means is for every two British people they are only producing 1.4 children. That means we are declining in numbers. In any society this is considered a dire problem.

    Second Wave feminism has been an unmitigated disaster for not just our country but for much of the Western world. It certainly has not made women happier, it has certainly made men unhappier and our entire society has suffered greatly as a result.



    You are mistaken. I think you have a distorted idea of what constitutes a 'manly' man. That doesn't mean a thuggish unfeeling brute - you're thinking of the 'laddish culture' thing. Have a look at some of the old black and white films, they were full of manly men who fully loved their partners.



    This is something else that 1960s feminism has done - it has made a womans traditional gender role seem feeble and worthless. The bearing and raising of children, however, is the single most important task for society. It's remarkable that feminism has managed to demean it so.

    Apparently the feminists believe that being "chained to the kitchen sink" and "barefoot and pregnant" (neither of these are a reality) is what we want women for while men are off in the wide world having wonderful adventures with the Wood Elves. The fact is we're either laying bricks, painting ceilings, at a desk, driving a taxi, at a computer etc etc. There is nothing that good about the world of work. It's a place where the vast majority of people are not particularly happy, they just do it for the money.
    But still if you believe that being a 'slave to your employer' is SO much better than being a 'slave to your husband' then carry on.

    The fact is - and you're not going to like this - our gender roles are not "social constructs" given to us by oppressive men of yesteryear. The feminists - and Marxists too - will tell you that gender roles are simply constructs of society and were created by men. WRONG.

    Evolution has, for hundreds of thousands of years - if not a few million years - given us our gender roles. Go right back to tribal times and you'll find men doing the hunting and protecting while women do the bearing and raising of children and taking care of the domestic side of things.
    This is how we have always been.

    A bunch of men didn't wake up one morning and decide: "we're now going to create a system where we oppress women and keep them at home."

    This is why physically men are larger and stronger than women, to fill the demands required of their gender role.

    Now, on the other hand, we've finally created a civilisation where these gender roles do not need to be so pronounced and rigid. That does NOT mean, however, we should abandon them completely and consign them to history.
    Women, because of the nature of society, can now go out and get educated, have a job, have a career etc. That's fine. BUT it has now gone TOO far. Our civilisation itself is suffering because of it. See the problems I mentioned above - marriage, divorce, birth rates etc.

    I think we need to try and find a happy medium between the overly rigid 1950s way of life and the far too laissez faire and destructive way of present day society. That means women willing to be housewives and stay-at-home mothers at least while they're having children and the children are young. Say between the ages of 25-35. Before that and for the many years after that they can pursue whatever they like. Though it would be ideal if they could stick to part time work while the children are still in school. But it certainly doesn't all rest of women. In light of this men need to change their outlook away from the 'laddish culture' and more towards commitment and provider for his wife and children.

    Hopefully this way we can balance the academic and employment wishes of women with the demands of society - that is to say producing at least 3 well educated children in a family environment.



    Swearing is vulgar regardless of who does it, that's true. However it IS worse when a female does it. Just like burping is vulgar but it's considered worse when a female does it. I realise you quite probably consider the idea of being 'ladylike' to be an oppressive relic of the past as well.

    Judging by the phraseology of your last comment it seems you're living in a feminist bubble. You've swallowed the feminist line and have learned it by rote.

    I do take some comfort in knowing that if things don't radically change then our society will keep on collapsing. Our society has gone down hill rapidly in the last 60 years - and certainly not just because of 1960s feminism but it plays a large part - and if we carry on as we are then by 2050 it will be far too late to do anything about it.
    Long! But good!

    Really like the whole demeaning of child are part. Some modern feminists act like to care for a baby makes you the scum of society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steve1989)
    I agree with this. But the problems with both of these things aren't 'feminism' related. We didn't have this problem you mentioned in the 1950s or before, for example, and yet we still had clear differences between men and women and how they interacted. For example swearing in front of a woman was considered pretty bad form.



    This, I'm afraid, is simply what Second Wave feminism masks itself as.

    The 'Women's Rights' movement was a genuine drive for some fundamental rights. The 1960s Feminism drive was about destroying the Nuclear Family and creating a rift between men and women. It has done that perfectly.

    On the one hand we have a culture of easy free sex where, as you said above, women are walking round in skimpy clothing looking to get laid and men who are not after commitment and simply want fun, while on the other hand marriage rates are falling, divorce rates are increasing and birth rates are way down. I believe the birth rate of Brits - excluding immigrant origin communities - is down to something like 1.4. In the 1950s it was somewhere around 3.0-3.5.

    What this means is for every two British people they are only producing 1.4 children. That means we are declining in numbers. In any society this is considered a dire problem.

    Second Wave feminism has been an unmitigated disaster for not just our country but for much of the Western world. It certainly has not made women happier, it has certainly made men unhappier and our entire society has suffered greatly as a result.



    You are mistaken. I think you have a distorted idea of what constitutes a 'manly' man. That doesn't mean a thuggish unfeeling brute - you're thinking of the 'laddish culture' thing. Have a look at some of the old black and white films, they were full of manly men who fully loved their partners.



    This is something else that 1960s feminism has done - it has made a womans traditional gender role seem feeble and worthless. The bearing and raising of children, however, is the single most important task for society. It's remarkable that feminism has managed to demean it so.

    Apparently the feminists believe that being "chained to the kitchen sink" and "barefoot and pregnant" (neither of these are a reality) is what we want women for while men are off in the wide world having wonderful adventures with the Wood Elves. The fact is we're either laying bricks, painting ceilings, at a desk, driving a taxi, at a computer etc etc. There is nothing that good about the world of work. It's a place where the vast majority of people are not particularly happy, they just do it for the money.
    But still if you believe that being a 'slave to your employer' is SO much better than being a 'slave to your husband' then carry on.

    The fact is - and you're not going to like this - our gender roles are not "social constructs" given to us by oppressive men of yesteryear. The feminists - and Marxists too - will tell you that gender roles are simply constructs of society and were created by men. WRONG.

    Evolution has, for hundreds of thousands of years - if not a few million years - given us our gender roles. Go right back to tribal times and you'll find men doing the hunting and protecting while women do the bearing and raising of children and taking care of the domestic side of things.
    This is how we have always been.

    A bunch of men didn't wake up one morning and decide: "we're now going to create a system where we oppress women and keep them at home."

    This is why physically men are larger and stronger than women, to fill the demands required of their gender role.

    Now, on the other hand, we've finally created a civilisation where these gender roles do not need to be so pronounced and rigid. That does NOT mean, however, we should abandon them completely and consign them to history.
    Women, because of the nature of society, can now go out and get educated, have a job, have a career etc. That's fine. BUT it has now gone TOO far. Our civilisation itself is suffering because of it. See the problems I mentioned above - marriage, divorce, birth rates etc.

    I think we need to try and find a happy medium between the overly rigid 1950s way of life and the far too laissez faire and destructive way of present day society. That means women willing to be housewives and stay-at-home mothers at least while they're having children and the children are young. Say between the ages of 25-35. Before that and for the many years after that they can pursue whatever they like. Though it would be ideal if they could stick to part time work while the children are still in school. But it certainly doesn't all rest of women. In light of this men need to change their outlook away from the 'laddish culture' and more towards commitment and provider for his wife and children.

    Hopefully this way we can balance the academic and employment wishes of women with the demands of society - that is to say producing at least 3 well educated children in a family environment.



    Swearing is vulgar regardless of who does it, that's true. However it IS worse when a female does it. Just like burping is vulgar but it's considered worse when a female does it. I realise you quite probably consider the idea of being 'ladylike' to be an oppressive relic of the past as well.

    Judging by the phraseology of your last comment it seems you're living in a feminist bubble. You've swallowed the feminist line and have learned it by rote.

    I do take some comfort in knowing that if things don't radically change then our society will keep on collapsing. Our society has gone down hill rapidly in the last 60 years - and certainly not just because of 1960s feminism but it plays a large part - and if we carry on as we are then by 2050 it will be far too late to do anything about it.
    You've basically just written a very long and pointless rehash of the guy I replied to, and ignored most things I've said. If I bothered to reply to it all, I would also be repeating myself.

    But "I've swallowed the feminist line"... because I believe anyone, regardless of gender, should be allowed to act how they damn well please? Everything you said is ridiculously sexist and old-fashioned. Women do no have to bear children. They do not have to act ladylike because it's "preferable."

    And allowing women basic human rights such as education has gone "too far" because we don't pop out as many babies as you'd like, and we don't stay unhappily married for the rest of our lives because we actually have a say in our happiness now? Gosh, how appalling.

    Complete tripe.

    Gender roles do not stem from "evolution" or "biology", if you had any kind of knowledge on the matter. Gender roles are man made. Otherwise other cultures where men take on the role of looking after children while the women hunt, or others where there are more than two kinds of gender, would not exist.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacob :))
    For the sake of this arguement lets say some drinks are very manly and others girly. Is it bad to not find it attractive for a girl to drink a manly drink?

    If I find feminity attractive surely it makes sense to be unattracted to a girl doing manly things?
    It's not bad, that's your preference. If you like women being feminine then that is fine, it's just that you will never find a woman that is completely feminine, just like you won't ever find a man that is completely masculine. I understand not being attracted to a woman who has a lot of tattoos, dresses quite butch and swears like a trooper but finding people unattractive because of their drink preferences? It's petty. If your preferences extend to things such as what someone eats or drinks then you're ruling out a lot of people who would otherwise be perfect for you. If a man that I liked enjoyed drinking apple martinis and strawberry daiquiris then it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

    Would you prefer a woman to drink something that was too strong for her or something that made her sick? For a long time all I could drink was beer and cider because they didn't upset my stomach, pretty much everything else did. I'd rather appear "manly" than drink something that made me feel sick. I know a lot of people who can't drink spirits and wines and so that rules out pretty much everything other than some "masculine" drinks. It's just ridiculous to rule out woman because of this, you probably can't afford to either unless you're a perfect specimen of a man who has multiple options every night.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IlexBlue)
    You've basically just written a very long and pointless rehash of the guy I replied to, and ignored most things I've said. If I bothered to reply to it all, I would also be repeating myself.

    But "I've swallowed the feminist line"... because I believe anyone, regardless of gender, should be allowed to act how they damn well please? Everything you said is ridiculously sexist and old-fashioned. Women do no have to bear children. They do not have to act ladylike because it's "preferable."

    And allowing women basic human rights such as education has gone "too far" because we don't pop out as many babies as you'd like, and we don't stay unhappily married for the rest of our lives because we actually have a say in our happiness now? Gosh, how appalling.

    Complete tripe.

    Gender roles do not stem from "evolution" or "biology", if you had any kind of knowledge on the matter. Gender roles are man made. Otherwise other cultures where men take on the role of looking after children while the women hunt, or others where there are more than two kinds of gender, would not exist.
    I can see you're not after a debate. You'll just keep repeating the same feminist nonsense. You couldn't rebute a single thing I said.

    Everything I said was factual in nature. 'Gender roles' are most definitely evolutionary in nature. If they are not exactly WHEN did some men decide to construct them and oppress women?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacob :))
    Got a couple of things and I wonder if they're considered sexist:

    Women swearing: I generally find it very unattractive as I find swearing aggressive and vulgar which I don't think are attractive traits for a woman to have.

    Gender specific tasks: In a marridge I would prefer that we sticked to gender defined household tasks. I would clean the car, take out rubbish, mow the lawn etc while my wife would iron, Hoover etc. This isn't just because I wouldn't want to do 'feminine' jobs but I wouldn't want my wife doing 'masculine' ones that are more dirty and physically hard because if she was I would feel like I wasn't being a good husband by making her from such un lady like tasks.

    Staying home with the baby: I would work because I would want to provide for my wife and baby. I wouldn't feel like a good husband if I allowed my wife to work while I looked after the baby.

    I know these views are old fashioned and I wouldn't enforce them with an iron fist but are they sexist? Is wanting to provide for and protect your wife sexist? Is wanting a lady to act feminine sexist?
    Personally I find it a little sexist as it seems to be very "you're the woman, therefore you should do the household chores and woman's work", which I don't think I'd go for.

    Having said that, I know there are many women out there (definitely not the majority but still) who are happy to do the "woman's work" while their husband does the supposedly manlier chores. If this is really something you want there are women who will happily agree.

    However, I think it's much better to divide the roles into what you're good at, not what the stereotypical gender roles are. For example, I happily cook for my boyfriend because I am the better cook out of the two of us. However, he hasn't a clue about DIY, so I do that too. It doesn't make him a bad boyfriend, it just means we do the tasks we are good at rather than the typical roles.

    As for providing for her, that's lovely and will be welcomed, but bear in mind women these days often want to work for themselves and don't really want to be financially dependent or dependent in any other way on their boyfriend/husband.

    Also, in my friends' case, she earned a lot more than him, so when they had their child, it was him who stayed home to look after the baby while she continued to work. I don't think that's a bad thing at all; it was what was best for their family.

    It's fair enough to want a feminine woman, we girls usually want masculine men, but I'm not as sure about the swearing thing, it's a little double-standardish if you can swear but she can't... But hey, it's just my opinion
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ice Constricter)
    Notice how a man saying "he wants a woman to act feminine" is considered sexist or at least verging on it, but when a girl wants a "manly" man no one bats an eyelid.
    Exactly. The OP's post does have some hints of sexism; however, if this had been a woman saying she wants to be with a 'manly' man - one who meets the stereotypical requirements - no one would regard it as even remotely sexist.

    Women can expect men to live up to certain stereotypes and hinge their relationship on it, but, if a man expects the woman to live up to old values, he is sexist... Personally, I think it is slightly sexist either way.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IlexBlue)
    You've basically just written a very long and pointless rehash of the guy I replied to, and ignored most things I've said. If I bothered to reply to it all, I would also be repeating myself.

    But "I've swallowed the feminist line"... because I believe anyone, regardless of gender, should be allowed to act how they damn well please? Everything you said is ridiculously sexist and old-fashioned. Women do no have to bear children. They do not have to act ladylike because it's "preferable."

    And allowing women basic human rights such as education has gone "too far" because we don't pop out as many babies as you'd like, and we don't stay unhappily married for the rest of our lives because we actually have a say in our happiness now? Gosh, how appalling.

    Complete tripe.

    Gender roles do not stem from "evolution" or "biology", if you had any kind of knowledge on the matter. Gender roles are man made. Otherwise other cultures where men take on the role of looking after children while the women hunt, or others where there are more than two kinds of gender, would not exist.
    I don't want to force anyone to do anything this is just what I'd prefer.

    But gender stereotypes come straight from evolution. Men are evolved to be hunters and women to bear children. Denying that is absurd. Just look at the physical differences.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacob :))
    Got a couple of things and I wonder if they're considered sexist:

    Women swearing: I generally find it very unattractive as I find swearing aggressive and vulgar which I don't think are attractive traits for a woman to have.

    Gender specific tasks: In a marridge I would prefer that we sticked to gender defined household tasks. I would clean the car, take out rubbish, mow the lawn etc while my wife would iron, Hoover etc. This isn't just because I wouldn't want to do 'feminine' jobs but I wouldn't want my wife doing 'masculine' ones that are more dirty and physically hard because if she was I would feel like I wasn't being a good husband by making her from such un lady like tasks.

    Staying home with the baby: I would work because I would want to provide for my wife and baby. I wouldn't feel like a good husband if I allowed my wife to work while I looked after the baby.

    I know these views are old fashioned and I wouldn't enforce them with an iron fist but are they sexist? Is wanting to provide for and protect your wife sexist? Is wanting a lady to act feminine sexist?
    There are hints of sexism, but I wouldn't say you have overly sexist views. I think it's fine for you to prefer that - many of both genders do. What you like is what you like, in the same way that someone who is primarily attracted to people of a certain colour is not necessarily racist. It would be sexist if you insisted on this, or took the view that this is how it should be. Simply hoping for traditional marital gender roles or enforcing them through mutual agreement isn't sexist.

    As for the swearing thing, it kind of depends what angle you're coming from. If you think only women shouldn't swear, that is sexist. If you don't like anyone swearing, it is not. Similarly, if you just wouldn't like to be in a relationship with someone who swears (e.g it has nothing to with her being a woman), I don't feel this is sexist either.

    Personally, I think we'd live in a better society if one partner looked after the kids and the home, while the other went out to work. It's better for the kids to be able to spend a good amount of quality time with at least one parent instead of a childminder. To me, whichever parent fills these roles is irrelevant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    yes.
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.