musemaj11 Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 Compare: "You are supposed to open the door for women. You are the man!" "You are supposed to pay for women on dates. You are the man!" With: "You are supposed to make me a sammich. You are the woman!" "You are supposed to listen to me and obey me. You are the woman!" "You are supposed to stay in the kitchen. You are the woman!" All the examples above are equally inherently sexist. But somehow the top ones are acceptable while the ones below are not. Its okay for women to demand a man to do something because he is a man, but the other way around is sexist!
Woggle Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 I fully agree. I fully support equality and feel that women are just as strong and capable as any man but this should go both ways.
kdark Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 You really wish things would go back to the way they were in the 1950s amirite? All of those statements are unacceptable to me. If a woman tells me I'm supposed to pay for her meals, I'm going to retaliate by telling her she's supposed to do my laundry.
Author musemaj11 Posted December 6, 2010 Author Posted December 6, 2010 You really wish things would go back to the way they were in the 1950s amirite? From gender balance point of view, I honestly would like to go back to the 50s.
kdark Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 From gender balance point of view, I honestly would like to go back to the 50s. There was not one bit of "balance" between the genders in the 50s. Why is that so appealing to you?
denise_xo Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 Compare: With: All the examples above are equally inherently sexist. But somehow the top ones are acceptable while the ones below are not. Its okay for women to demand a man to do something because he is a man, but the other way around is sexist! Yes, both are sexist and where I live the top ones aren't any more acceptable than the bottom ones. Men don't open doors or pay for dates here. They do, however, do their share with house work and child care, just like no woman here can expect to be financially provided for by a man or just assume that he will take care of traditional 'manly' work around the house.
Els Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 There is a slight bit of discrepancy in the degrees of extremity of your examples. I fixed it for you: 'You're supposed to stay in the kitchen and do all the house chores' and 'You're supposed to obey me' correlates with: 'You're supposed to support the family completely' and 'I shouldn't need to work outside the house at all'. 'You're supposed to let me take the lead' and 'You're supposed to dress up all pretty and feminine and look sexy for me' correlates with: 'You should pay for the first date' and 'You should hold doors open for me'. Very few people nowadays adhere to the first degree, whereas many do adhere to the second degree. You shouldn't mix the two up though, because the first is far more extremist. A woman who expects a man to pay for the first date, for example, is different from a woman who expects a man to support the family singlehandedly all his life. Thus, it would not be a double standard for her NOT to spend all her life in the kitchen, but it would be a double standard for her not to adhere to less extreme 'sexist' expectations.
zengirl Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 There is a slight bit of discrepancy in the degrees of extremity of your examples. I fixed it for you: 'You're supposed to stay in the kitchen and do all the house chores' and 'You're supposed to obey me' correlates with: 'You're supposed to support the family completely' and 'I shouldn't need to work outside the house at all'. 'You're supposed to let me take the lead' and 'You're supposed to dress up all pretty and feminine and look sexy for me' correlates with: 'You should pay for the first date' and 'You should hold doors open for me'. Very few people nowadays adhere to the first degree, whereas many do adhere to the second degree. You shouldn't mix the two up though, because the first is far more extremist. A woman who expects a man to pay for the first date, for example, is different from a woman who expects a man to support the family singlehandedly all his life. Thus, it would not be a double standard for her NOT to spend all her life in the kitchen, but it would be a double standard for her not to adhere to less extreme 'sexist' expectations. Precisely. And I think it's furthermore different to say, "I want to be with a man who does XYZ" or "I want to be with a woman who does XYZ" than it is to say "Men are supposed to do XYZ" and "Women are supposed to do XYZ." Saying what you want is not the same as saying what a gender is supposed to do. Relationships are, for the most part, about personal desires, not societal norms, anymore. If you want a woman who likes to cook for you, I don't consider that sexist. If you say all women should stay home and cook for their man, that is. Two totally different things.
Els Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 There was not one bit of "balance" between the genders in the 50s. Why is that so appealing to you? Because all the OP really wants is for things to be in 'his' favour. He doesn't give a jot about true equality, he doesn't care about women who are being oppressed in other countries... his only issue is that he feels put-upon because he doesn't have the backbone to stand up to the women who are expecting him to do things he doesn't have to do. I personally would be very happy if there was COMPLETE equality. If men shared exactly 50% of pregnancy, labour, and childcare. If, like a man, I had less weightage placed on my appearance, and more weightage placed on my intelligence and what I can do, by society's 'value scoring' system. If, like a man, I could walk around topless or pee in the bush and noone would bat an eye. But that isn't happening anytime in our lifetimes, so I just have to make the most of it.
Els Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 Btw, OP. I have been trying to tell you, and all the other 'Woe is me' guys this through multiple threads, but it seems that whenever that voice of reason comes you cease all response to the thread. I realize you probably don't want to listen to anything that doesn't fan the flames of your zeal to proclaim how used and oppressed men are, but I'm hoping that other guys will read and understand. Stop whining about what 'society expects of you'. Society, both men and women, expect unfair things from other men and women based on their gender. It is life. Instead, be the man YOU want to be, and make no excuses for it. Yes, there will be women who will discount you simply because they feel you are not 'gentlemanly' enough for them, because you didn't pull the chair out for them or offer to pay. It is okay. Heavens, you're not THAT desperate, are you? Do you really want them anyway? If they expect such things of you, or worse, apply double standards with regard to gender roles, then they are evidently incompatible with you. You just did yourself a favour by weeding them out. Trust me on this. Even if you go dutch on all dates, you will probably not narrow your options more than a girl who refuses to work on her appearance or dress in a feminine manner, wanting to only be loved for her intellect and passions and other personality traits that people value more in men than in women. And if she can find great guys who accept and love her for who she is instead of how she looks like, which is what she wanted in the first place... YOU can find a great woman who accepts your stand on gender roles as well, which is what YOU want. Unless, of course, you yourself are subconsciously imposing gender role requirements on her while not wanting them for yourself, in which case any woman who truly wanted equality would avoid you.
waynebrady Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 If a man would say that women should cook, clean, stay at home and that the man should be the breadwinner and all that, most women would be furious and call him sexistic. Yet, most women say stuff like the man should initiate everything, the man should do all the chasing, the man should put in all the effort to prove his "worth" and so on in the dating stages... There's a clear double standard.
Feelin Frisky Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 The first two are just things the guy has an interest in doing--at least in the US--if he doesn't want to appear a dud. Maybe there's a little wiggle room on the second one for who asks whom to do what. But generally no one will outwardly gripe abou holding the door. It's just considered customary. The second three are pretty egegious and "old world". Obey me, make me a sammich, shut up and stay in the kitchen are not contemporary--they are like slave orders or ownwership commands and not the kinda modern "partnership" life typical of a couple in the US of A. They may still be that way in other countries--especially theocracies where men are the law and women are their property.
Sarah1977 Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 I'll start feeling sorry for men for opening the doors when they start telling me they'd prefer it if I don't shave my legs anymore.
ColumbiaD Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 The top examples are not nearly as extreme as the bottom ones. Personally, if I have my own job and pay all my own bills, pay half our household expenses, do all the cleaning, most of the laundry and all the cooking and grocery shopping, all the social organizing and gift buying/wrapping for birthdays, housewarmings, weddings, anniversaries and holidays, the least my partner can do is hold the door for me and buy me dinner when we eat out. Women's roles in society have changed significantly over the past few decades, while men's have changed very little. Women offer much more now than they did in the 50s or in most any other time period (childbearing, child rearing, femme fatale, full time jobs, caretakers of home and relationship, etc.). Much more is expected of women these days. Most men are pretty much how they always have been. If the "sexist" women in your life only expect you to hold the door and pay for date(s), you're getting off easy, in my opinion. All the examples above are equally inherently sexist. But somehow the top ones are acceptable while the ones below are not. Its okay for women to demand a man to do something because he is a man, but the other way around is sexist!
Mme. Chaucer Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 Prefacing all of them with "you are supposed to" puts a pretty negative spin on them. The first two examples are really social customs for the "courtship" stage. Dating is supposed to be fun and pleasant, so whatever either person can and is willing to do to make it so would be a positive, wouldn't it? Courtly gestures usually go over very well, as do traditionally feminine ones from women. Opening a door for a woman is a lovely courtesy. I think making a sammich for your man is a nice courtesy as well. If a woman stands grumpily in front of a door until a guy opens it, or if a man bellows "make me a sammich" from his post in the bark-o-lounger ... losers! Really, though, your examples are not at all comparable. You could make a much better list if you'd like to inspire good discussion.
dispatch3d Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 I'll start feeling sorry for men for opening the doors when they start telling me they'd prefer it if I don't shave my legs anymore. You don't want to be hot? seems odd haha! Oh wait! This post almost makes me want to go on a rant about how poisonous feminism is because they blame everything on society. However, I'd be a hypocrit.
Woggle Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 I'll start feeling sorry for men for opening the doors when they start telling me they'd prefer it if I don't shave my legs anymore. There is no law that says you have to shave your legs just like there is no law that says I have to open doors.
Recommended Posts