women: would you like to be proteced and kept?

[threebyfate]

Why would anyone ask for female opinion, then tell women they don't know what they want or need?

 

:facepalm:

 

Makes me wonder if deep down inside, some men want to be "kept" (inner little boy looking for mommy) so they project the belief onto women.

[NeverDated]

Yes, I think the "natural order" is a phrase often used the same way "the good old days" is used to keep things from moving and changing and growing is all. Since we cannot know what it is, why assume anything about it? Let's just try to figure out what's best for us in the here and now.

It's good to try to glean information from other societies, especially when discussing "gender roles" (which typically translates to "Should women be barefoot and pregnant or not?"). It just adds context to the debate. Maybe that was a "woman's role" 100 years ago. What about 500? 1000? In Asia? In central Africa?

 

It's also beneficial in determining what is good in the here and now, though. We know, from medical research alone, what we're currently doing is wrong. It doesn't work. And many women feel incomplete, whether they be homemakers or high-powered career women. Why? I think it makes perfect sense to look back at how things were across time and areas to compare it to how things are. Maybe to find the missing piece.

 

One of the things I find interesting about remaining primitive cultures is, universally, they do not worry nearly as much as industrialized cultures. Maybe I'm looking at the original question too deeply, but it seems to me the question of what kind of life would we prefer can be answered more simply (but not easily) if we figure out why other cultures lack worry. What is so fundamentally different between us and them that as our culture evolved we adopted a constant stress that prevents us from being wholly satisfied with anything?

[zengirl]

It's also beneficial in determining what is good in the here and now, though. We know, from medical research alone, what we're currently doing is wrong. It doesn't work. And many women feel incomplete, whether they be homemakers or high-powered career women. Why? I think it makes perfect sense to look back at how things were across time and areas to compare it to how things are. Maybe to find the missing piece.

 

We do? I'm not sure what you mean, but I've never seen any conclusive evidence that what we're doing is wrong or that our current attempts to try to eliminate gender roles doesn't work.

 

If you mean it's not perfect. Well, sure. Progress has never been perfect. But ending reliance on strict gender roles IS progress. I think we need to go further with it, sure -- there is still too much gender-centric socialization and gay and transgendered people are still discriminated against greatly for exploring and expressing forms of sexuality and sexual identify that defy the "norm." I think that when we move forward it makes people who've already been socialized with old norms uncomfortable.

 

One of the things I find interesting about remaining primitive cultures is, universally, they do not worry nearly as much as industrialized cultures. Maybe I'm looking at the original question too deeply, but it seems to me the question of what kind of life would we prefer can be answered more simply (but not easily) if we figure out why other cultures lack worry. What is so fundamentally different between us and them that as our culture evolved we adopted a constant stress that prevents us from being wholly satisfied with anything?

 

I find this a very simple question to answer. They lack the time and resources to worry the way we do. Many primitive cultures still worry, but they worry about things that are crucial to their day-to-day survival. Many people in the modern world have developed tools to deal with the worry anyway. I don't think all people worry. Personally, I'd rather have some worry and to have to meditate and deal with it than to face the potential for a bad growing season to wipe out half my village. I think most modern people would. I've met few who'd actually want to live in a primitive society.

[wwwjd]

Why would anyone ask for female opinion, then tell women they don't know what they want or need?

 

Should I bother responding in this thread? Quite a few assumptions are made near the end here that kind of go off somewhere else. To me, this means the thread has run its course.

[soserious1]

real quickly, this stems from my personal experiences with women... first, there seems to almost always be things women can not admit EVER aloud to themselve or anybody. bad example, an anorexic girl telling herself and others she is TOO FAT. deep down somewhere buried she KNOWS she is not too fat, if nothing else, just comparing to other women's dress sizes if she is a 1 or 0 or whatever and everyone else averages a 3 (I don't know real numbers) yet she REALLY BELEIVES she is too fat. Like I said, bad example but you get what I mean. She can't admit it to herself. Vastly generalizing, many women can not admit things to themselves maybe because they believe they shouldn't I don't know, but I do know that exists. I'm no shrink, but can talk very deep with people drilling down to the core, and this is what I have found. If it is something you can't see or even know it is there or acknoledge, you won't know about it until the day it comes out.

Hope that doesn't open another Pandora's box of worms, to mix, some metaphors, just talking about differert stuff online.

 

And these girls I know were all self supporting, career driven, hard core women who were successful and indepedent. Yet, under all that surface distraction was the little girl wanting to be wisked off to a castle and protected by her Prince. Yes, fantasy, but completely acheivable if you redraw the landscape and clothing. IF one allows this to exist.

 

So, just checking in to hear what the wodern womens FEEL about these buried things.

 

Well, you live in a different world than I do. I've never had the kinds of dreams & hidden desires you keep insisting all women have.

[mesmerized]

My only buried desire is having my own harem of men.

[xxoo]

Should I bother responding in this thread? Quite a few assumptions are made near the end here that kind of go off somewhere else. To me, this means the thread has run its course.

 

The op itself was a question based on an assumption. It is difficult to fully answer the question without exploring the assumption.

[wwwjd]

The op itself was a question based on an assumption. It is difficult to fully answer the question without exploring the assumption.

 

Sure, but somewhere it went personal like *I* was converting my old GFs or expected that, and I never did say that and never did expect that.

Twas just a topic for interesting discussion. Not sure why it got all about me manipulating and telling people what their opinions are. Threads branch out too far sometimes and the tree falls over.

 

There was one or two other GUYS that knew what I was saying and had no problems with it, even understood it. So, it is not just in MY head

[zengirl]

Well, the 'evidence' for your assumption was personal, so of course it's going to require a discussion of what personal experiences you're referring to (us not being there or having those personal experiences). I can say any time I've felt social pressure to 'act' a certain way and buried my true desires, it was in the opposite direction you suggest -- it was to put less focus on my career, have kids, etc. My true desires are pretty much unearthed now and I feel secure in who I am, and I've NO desire to be pigeon-holed into the "traditional female" role or be with a man who'd want to be a traditional male and felt men didn't understand nurturing, fathers were lesser parents, men were better providers, etc. No hidden desires on that front here.

 

I can say almost all young people -- male and female -- are going to need to get to know themselves over time before they know what they really want for their lives. I'll take choices any day, though, even with the work they bring with them, and I think most people will, at the end of the day, to the potential of being a square peg forced into a round hole, especially because of your gender, race, etc.

[wwwjd]

Great points as usual, zen girl. I read back the first 4 posts I made to check if I went off somewhere, and didn't look like I did. I never wanted to change those women, I liked who they were or I wouldn't have grown together with them. And I know ya don't change people. It was just curious and interesting going deeper into them like that.

And a large amount of good online discussion is playing devils advocate also, which I did a little. Wasn't trying to rub anyone wrong here. [please ignore any Freudianism is that remark!]

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Yes, I wouldn't mind the scenerio where I could stay home with kids and for my man. I find more personal satisfaction through my relationships then I do work. Ideally, I could stay home and take care of my man as he also takes care of me and make money writting or painting. I don't mind doing house chores at all. I just hate grocery shopping to be honest. So if I could pay someone to do that for us. I am more then happy to cook, clean, write/paint and be there for my family.

 

I actually think in the future there will be more stay-at-home-jobs anyway because things are so progressive with a lot of jobs being able to be done at home anyway.

[NeverDated]

We do? I'm not sure what you mean, but I've never seen any conclusive evidence that what we're doing is wrong or that our current attempts to try to eliminate gender roles doesn't work.

I wasn't speaking specifically of gender roles. As a whole being, we are doing something wrong. So-called "Western diseases" (diabetes, obesity, depression, etc.) are all on the rise. We're doing something wrong, systemically. Edited to add: This is, IMO, important to gender roles because women fell into a stereotype in modern cultures as we progressed toward industrialization. The more industrialized a nation, the fewer privileges a woman had (broad sweeping generalization, I am aware of exceptions). So, personally, I consider all the problems to be intertwined.

 

I find this a very simple question to answer. They lack the time and resources to worry the way we do. Many primitive cultures still worry, but they worry about things that are crucial to their day-to-day survival. Many people in the modern world have developed tools to deal with the worry anyway. I don't think all people worry. Personally, I'd rather have some worry and to have to meditate and deal with it than to face the potential for a bad growing season to wipe out half my village. I think most modern people would. I've met few who'd actually want to live in a primitive society.

You keep talking about living in a primitive society. No one suggested that was a good idea, especially not me. I said they offer insight and are worth considering.

 

As far as time, the Hazda tribes actually have more free time than Americans. They have the time to worry...they just don't.

[wwwjd]

I consider all the problems to be intertwined.

 

That is EXACTLY the way I see it too. But it is extremely difficult to show people That Matrix.

[udolipixie]

Yes I'd like that as I live it now. I love, protect, provide for, and keep myself. There's no stress about money matters for me.

 

To me in the age of equality, enlightenment, woman's rights, and independent gals one doesn't need a man for that kind of life if it appeals to them. They only need a man if they want that kind of life to be given to them by a man.

[threebyfate]

They only need a man if they want that kind of life to be given to them by a man.

Profile of the "I wanna be taken care of woman":

• Reads romance novels.
  
• Loves Disney princess movies.
  
• Grew up with fairy tales.
  
• Has never been a mother or stay-at-home mother, where the muck and grind of diaper duty, sleep deprivation and play dates supplant martini lunches with the girls.
  
• Has no idea how much time it takes to cook and clean up after husband and child/children. Cute mini sandwiches cut with cookie cutters take time, time that most women don't have while staying at home.
  
• Very likely has never been married before and very likely won't find her rich man dumb enough to marry the primadonna Prince!
  

[RedRobin]

Sure, but somewhere it went personal like *I* was converting my old GFs or expected that, and I never did say that and never did expect that.

 

Hmmm....

 

I'd dig a little deeper if I were you. There is clearly something you find satisfying about this idea that the 'independent' women you used as examples, to use your words, enjoy being 'kept'.

 

You didn't say it, but it is kind of a secret fantasy alot of men I know have. That they can have all the 'perks' of having a self-sufficient woman while still being in control.

 

To spin it as some secret wish of women to be 'kept' as some kind of favor you are doing women makes me kind of ill. It seems sneaky. It feel just the opposite from the illusion of mutual care and protection you might seem to hope for or impression you want to leave. Then you attach it to the assumption that you are just meeting some unmet need and you are 'saving' them from this cruel modern world.

 

I'm going to differentiate your premise and OP (which was respectful) from your subsequent confusing posts. In your original OP, it sounded like you were asking if there are women who wanted to live a more domestic life. And yes, there absolutely are.

 

Are there women who'd like some time off and are in a trusting relationship with a man who she can trust to do this with? Sure! In academia they even have a thing called a 'sabatacle'. Everyone needs a break.

 

You went too far when you said that women have a secret desire to be 'kept' DEEP down. That is what I'm pushing back against. My ex-H paid a high price for making that assumption. We both did, obviously. But I'm talking to you, as a man. Don't make the same mistake he did and lots of men who have tried to cozy up to women like me make.

 

I know I don't want to be kept. I want someone I can trust during hard times. Someone who would care for me if things got rough. I'm in a position where I can do the same for a man I'm in a partnership with. That's a pretty far shot from saying I want to be kept like a pet. That is what it would feel like for me.

Edited April 19, 2012 by RedRobin

[zengirl]

I wasn't speaking specifically of gender roles.

 

Well, I was previously and this thread was (that's pretty much the topic of this thread), so that's why I continued on this tact.

 

As a whole being, we are doing something wrong. So-called "Western diseases" (diabetes, obesity, depression, etc.) are all on the rise. We're doing something wrong, systemically.

 

Well, the 3 issues you mention all have to do with our level of activity and the foods we eat. Of course, tribal societies -- which don't have processed foods, fast food, supermarkets, and which have to do menial, physical labor constantly -- don't have the same amount of those problems. Many do still have depression and anxiety, as have many historical societies; they just don't have the terminology or medicine for it. In general, obesity and diabetes are also relatively easy to combat in modern society, we just choose not to.

 

Edited to add: This is, IMO, important to gender roles because women fell into a stereotype in modern cultures as we progressed toward industrialization. The more industrialized a nation, the fewer privileges a woman had (broad sweeping generalization, I am aware of exceptions). So, personally, I consider all the problems to be intertwined.

 

I wouldn't say that. The more industrialized a nation, the more privileges women have, I'd say. Not that it happened immediately with industrialization but that's certainly true today. You can even see the difference between rural and urban areas and their ideas on gender roles. I'm not sure what you really mean there. At any rate, I think calling them "privileges" is incorrect. I'd say rights, choices, and agency.

 

You keep talking about living in a primitive society. No one suggested that was a good idea, especially not me. I said they offer insight and are worth considering.

 

I think it's dangerous to look towards agricultural or hunting societies for any insight into gender roles, as you often fall back on the same evolutionary stereotypes that suggest mens' work and womens' work should be separate. In a modern society, we've already learned that idea doesn't work and we should simply move on, IMO. I'm not saying there's nothing at all to be gleaned from primitive societies, but I'm skeptical of anyone who asserts that they have it 'better' or seems to think set gender roles and stereotypes are, in any way, a good idea.

[wwwjd]

Hmmm....

 

I'd dig a little deeper if I were you.

 

 

I don't enjoy doing the line by line quoted dissection thing on the internet, so I will just leave it at you are reading far too much into the whole topic.

It wasn't something I find satisfying in them at all, it was just there.

 

And, yes, there are things women do seem unable to admit even to themselves even if we see it externally.

 

My 1st four posts cover what it was about completely.

[serial muse]

I don't enjoy doing the line by line quoted dissection thing on the internet, so I will just leave it at you are reading far too much into the whole topic.

It wasn't something I find satisfying in them at all, it was just there.

 

And, yes, there are things women do seem unable to admit even to themselves even if we see it externally.

 

My 1st four posts cover what it was about completely.

 

But are you saying that all women must feel this way, deep down? Are you trying to say that those of us who have said we don't feel that way aren't telling the truth, or don't know ourselves as well as you do?

 

That is why this is objectionable, OP. But I guess if you're convinced that you know best, despite heartfelt discussion that offers other viewpoints, then you're right, the thread is over.

[xxoo]

I don't enjoy doing the line by line quoted dissection thing on the internet, so I will just leave it at you are reading far too much into the whole topic.

It wasn't something I find satisfying in them at all, it was just there.

 

And, yes, there are things women do seem unable to admit even to themselves even if we see it externally.

 

My 1st four posts cover what it was about completely.

 

wwwjd, like most of us, you probably have a "type". There is a type of woman you are attracted to, and who is attracted to you. I'm not talking about physical, but more values, personality, etc.

 

The type of woman you date may be more likely to be the way you describe than women as a whole.

 

FWIW, it is offputting to me that you believe you know women better than they know themselves. Regarding the bolded, that sounds like something I would say about children, not grown women. It is very condescending, imo. Maybe you spend a lot of time around immature women.

[wwwjd]

But are you saying that all women must feel this way, deep down? Are you trying to say that those of us who have said we don't feel that way aren't telling the truth, or don't know ourselves as well as you do?

 

That is why this is objectionable, OP. But I guess if you're convinced that you know best, despite heartfelt discussion that offers other viewpoints, then you're right, the thread is over.

 

I don't think ANYONE can truly say "All" anything about anyone on the internet. My mistake was not assuming everyone already knew that. I DID say ALL the women *I* talked deeply with had that deep down desire. Yes, ALL of them. Which is where the topic came from.

 

I never said I know best. Just posted an interesting topic for discussions.

 

If people don't like hearing that they COULD have deeper burried feelings somewhere hidden away inside them, I can't help that. But their not believing it does not mean it is not true. It could be, but I don't know. It's just an optional direction of the conversation. I'm just throwing out ideas.

[wwwjd]

The type of woman you date may be more likely to be the way you describe than women as a whole.

 

I guess, and that is the surprising part. To me anyway. I assumed these gals had it ALL figured out, everything stable and going on - which is the way I am and we fit well that way, thus the attraction presumably - but that way of life seemed to negate most of the "I want to be held and protected" stuff.

 

So, I posted this topic as an interesting discussion to find out if others can admit this. Not that EVERYONE or ALL WOMEN want that, but I see many others are not into that. And that is where this threaded should have ended.

 

The fact that women (and men) can't admit that there are things they sometimes can't admit is it's own cyclical proof that the concept exists and should be an entirely separate topic. But it fit here also.

Heck, even *I* CAN ADMIT that there might be things I CAN'T ADMIT but I think it would take someone outside of me to bring it up. Then I would probably tell them they are wrong and condescending and full of crap.

[zengirl]

Of course, people don't like being told that a stranger on the internet presumes to know they have a deep down feeling that they are saying they don't have. . . why is that a mystery or surprise at all?

 

It's rude to tell people -- especially an entire group of people like all women or all men or all Canadians or whatever -- how they feel. It's entirely okay to ASK people how they feel or say you've met people who admitted later that they felt differently deep down than they expressed generally. But not being able to draw the distinction between the rude, inappropriate behavior of telling people how they feel and those other things is extremely strange.

 

Think about it: You felt the conversation got too "personal" when people started even SPECULATING on how you feel, but you feel comfortable telling all women how they feel? Are you sure you're going to keep saying that's perfectly okay?

[wwwjd]

please quote when I was "telling ALL women how THEY feel"?

I cant remember that

[zengirl]

I think posting this post, especially the bolded, after a thread of many women saying, "No, that's not what I want," is saying that.

 

I don't think ANYONE can truly say "All" anything about anyone on the internet. My mistake was not assuming everyone already knew that. I DID say ALL the women *I* talked deeply with had that deep down desire. Yes, ALL of them. Which is where the topic came from.

 

I never said I know best. Just posted an interesting topic for discussions.

 

If people don't like hearing that they COULD have deeper burried feelings somewhere hidden away inside them, I can't help that. But their not believing it does not mean it is not true. It could be, but I don't know. It's just an optional direction of the conversation. I'm just throwing out ideas.

 

You've consistently avoided any OTHER direction of this conversation. You keep saying it's optional or that you're not saying everyone but you're continually beating the drum of this idea where women don't know what they think and feel just because that happens to be the type of woman you've gotten to know personally and impression you've gotten.

 

The underlined sentence particularly bothered me.

 

You want others to accept what you say you feel (that you were not trying to change the women) as true. Why can't you accept what women are saying about their desires as true?