moimeme Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 It appears that there has been some sort of bizarre twist in how people are being socialized in recent years. I have seen countless posts in which some female apparently expects that because she wants/needs/desires something, her man should jump to do it, get it, or give it to her. I'm not talking about standard relationship stuff like love, trust, affection, but of stuff like babies, rings, whatever. I have yet to see a man post saying "I really want a big new truck and if my wife really loved me, she'd get it for me because I want it". If he did, he'd be laughed off the board. So what's up with this? Are females being taught that men are their servants? Are they being told that men's role is to serve/please them in all their desires these days? Where are females getting this impression from? Is nobody being socialized to want to be fair, or even to give to their men? How, exactly, is it that the woman's every wish, desire, and whim must be honoured but not the man's?
Mr Spock Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 If I want something, I'll get it myself. Unless I can't lift it. Then I'll expect someone to jump to it.
dyermaker Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 I always figured one of the only benefits of getting married is having a nice woman to open jars for you.
Mr Spock Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 I always thought it was having someone who could get rid of spiders without screaming.
Mr Spock Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 Ok, ok, I don't have a serious response to this-I don't understand it either Moimeme-when I'm in a committed relationship I don't say "I want this, get it for me" I say "I'm going to get this, what do you think?" I think I understand the thread you're referring to, it gets my goat too.
Author moimeme Posted July 18, 2004 Author Posted July 18, 2004 It's not just a single post, though that one's included. It's a cumulation of posts over time. It's the porn posts and the ring posts and all sorts of them - always it's 'I want X and so (generic spousal unit) SHOULD get it for me' because I want it. ' Is it a whole mentality now that women should get absolutely everything and anything they want and that men are just there to provide it?
Mr baseball Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 Moimeme Great question and observation! I think its the old "What's in it for me" syndrome. The best provider or should I say spoiler wins. I have noticed that if you get something you didn't ask for it holds more value than something you ask for and expect to get. I wonder what happened to surprises. You know doing something for the love you have for that person
havNfun Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 I like your attitude Moimeme, Are you single or married (grin) I agree. There is this and also the "affirmative action" syndrome. I run into a lot of people through my work. Some women and people just act and feel entitled to everything and it is very unpleasant. other's are not like th is and ussually the one's that are the most productive and pleasant.
BlockHead Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 moimeme Are they being told that men's role is to serve/please them in all their desires these days?I think this has more to do with a sense of entitlement. She expects the man to provide, and to keep her happy. If he doesn’t keep his end of the bargain, she divorces him, takes half the possessions, and then looks for another man who can meet her expectations. moimeme Is nobody being socialized to want to be fair, or even to give to their men?I think individualism is strongly encouraged among women. What happened to compassion, understanding, patience, and humility? moimeme How, exactly, is it that the woman's every wish, desire, and whim must be honoured but not the man's?I think woman are supposed to be like delicate flowers. The men are expected to “take it like a man.”
Author moimeme Posted July 18, 2004 Author Posted July 18, 2004 Moimeme Great question and observation! Thanks, Mr. B! You're not Tom Selleck are you? You know doing something for the love you have for that person Exactly! I like your attitude Moimeme, Thanks much! Are you single or married (grin) I think I'm supposed to call myself 'unclaimed treasure' Some women and people just act and feel entitled to everything and it is very unpleasant. I was under the impression that everyone is much more about entitlement these days, but it appears that many women are outstripping men in this regard. A disturbing trend, IMHO. Then again, we haven't got any sociological analysis - just my observations based on the board. And that makes sense, no? People with entitlement issues maybe have trouble in relationships... BH What happened to compassion, understanding, patience, and humility? Apparently, if you believe in this sort of stuff, people berate you and call you a 'virtuecrat' for thinking people ought to treat each other well I think woman are supposed to be like delicate flowers. The men are expected to “take it like a man.” Am I in the 21st century or am I just dreaming it? Is there a horse-and-buggy outside my door? Will I wake up from a dream of a world interconnected by a computer phenomenon to my button shoes and my candle and quill? Somebody pinch me.
midori Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 I think I know the phenomenon being described, and I'm not sure that it's a matter of some women thinking that whatever they want should be granted them, but rather that there is a list of things, usually material things, that are the norm, and their sense of being respected/valued/etc. by their boyfriends/husbands is tied to this list being met. This list often seems to include: large diamond engagement ring flowers/chocolate/other obligatory gifts on obligatory days ('six month anniversary,' etc.) wedding that is Just So and features Bridezilla in all her carefully coiffed and manicured glory fill it in yourself, I can't think of anything else off the top of my head The list can also include behavior that the woman has been cued to believe is dangerous in and of itself. This is not to say that such behaviors are in fact benign, but nuances are rarely explored, it's just assumed that they are wrong and indicate grave problems in the relationship. Such behaviors can include: porn viewing -- even if it's just occasional hanging out with buddies after work -- even if it's just occasional other stuff, again, fill it in yourself I think the problem is tricky, at least with the behavioral stuff. But overall the root of it seems to be unexplored assumptions based on perceived social norms. "Everyone" whose boyfriend/fiance/husband loves her has a large diamond ring -- the more eye-catching the ring, the better one is assured that she is loved. Without the ring, how can you be sure? If your boyfriend doesn't acknowledge your six-month anniversary by buying you an adorable teddy bear, a pretty bracelet, and taking you out to dinner, how will you know that you're loved? And how will your friends and family know that you're loved? It's not right to entirely disparage such assumptions. People tend to think that what the other people around them are doing is the norm, and they don't question it. We all operate with heuristics, we have to in order to function in a complex world. If we questioned every little thing all of the time we'd never get out of bed in the morning. When your cousin has a boyfriend who always holds the door for her, buys her presents on a regular basis, has just proposed and produced a ring sporting a shiny rock to seal the deal, why would you not expect the same for yourself? I want to be treated with respect -- holding doors is a sign a man respects me, right? I want to know that my boyfriend is thinking about me and wants to make me happy -- getting presents is visible proof that he does. Etc. If my boyfriend hits the criteria then I can rest assured that he does love me, does respect me, etc. and I can rest easy (and so can he!). And some people think that's really cheesy and unnecessary. I find it to be so... but I have my own assumptions that I operate with that I know aren't entirely rational. We all do. I was maid of honor in a good friend's wedding a few years ago. It was an ostentatious production that undoubtedly cost what could have been the down payment for a house. So many things about my friend's courtship with her fiance, and the wedding itself, had me biting my tongue to keep from groaning at the sheer cheesiness of it all. One highlight: in the ceremony there was a pause so that two singers, hired by the bride and groom and otherwise unknown to either of them, could sing the love theme from Phantom of the Opera. OK besides the fact that I think Andrew Lloyd Webber ought to qualify as a weapon of mass destruction, or at least a crime against humanity, there's the fact that they designed their ceremony to feature two people who themselves meant nothing to them, because they thought they should have a love song performed in their ceremony, that it was de rigeur. But so long as they were happy with it, I was happy for them. If the guy is willing to go along with such assumptions (even if he ends up feeling put upon) then he's probably well-suited to a woman inclined to expect Certain Things. They're probably both operating with a similar set of heuristics. Maybe they're makign themselves unhappy living an unquestioned life where they just accept things at face value. I don't know. But my good friend is happily married, just had her first child, and has the life that I think she's always wanted. So I'm happy for her. If her husband weren't the sort of guy to buy teddy bears at appointed times then they wouldn't be together. But he is the type to buy teddy bears. So they're happy.
Author moimeme Posted July 18, 2004 Author Posted July 18, 2004 besides the fact that I think Andrew Lloyd Webber ought to qualify as a weapon of mass destruction I am one of those wretches who unapologetically loves the man but surely hearing Pie Jesu would cause anyone to forgive him whatever excesses you might feel he has indulged! Returning to the question at hand; do you really think it's just a matter of heuristics? Or, rather, have the underlying assumptions changed at all? It seems to me that the components of the current model that people seem to subscribe to have changed, that there is a more significant element of entitlement, as others have suggested. It seems to me that the 'huge ring' expectation is a relatively recent innovation, for instance. So they're happy I agree completely that if both people share the same image of what the 'oughts' are and abide by them, and are happy doing so, then there's no reason to shake their assumptions or question their attitudes. It works for them. My concern is the folks who are not happy and end up on LS because of it; because their unrealistic or unfair demands aren't being met. Are you saying that they just need to find people who have similar attitudes rather than changing their own? It may be easier in the long run, I suppose, but is it the best way to go?
midori Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme It seems to me that the 'huge ring' expectation is a relatively recent innovation, for instance. Diamonds are more affordable than they used to be, Western society is wealthier than it ever has been overall, and I think that I've read that people are not debt-averse as they used to be, probably because the consequences haven't yet hit society as a whole. If it ever does... I expect certain assumptions will change. I agree completely that if both people share the same image of what the 'oughts' are and abide by them, and are happy doing so, then there's no reason to shake their assumptions or question their attitudes. It works for them. My concern is the folks who are not happy and end up on LS because of it; because their unrealistic or unfair demands aren't being met. Are you saying that they just need to find people who have similar attitudes rather than changing their own? It may be easier in the long run, I suppose, but is it the best way to go? First I'm not convinced that the expectations are unrealistic. If your cousins, sisters, and co-workers all have certain things, is it unreasonable to expect them for yourself? Secondly, the assumptions that work on women in relationships are perhaps more subtle and unquestioned by both women and men, appearing to be more common-sense. Who has to make career decisions that will allow for child-bearing (and possibly rearing)? Women, without question. Yadda yadda yadda, we dont' need to turn this into an exploration of the things women are required to bear in society. But just as there are expectations for women in relationships, so are there expectations for men. The latter might be more influenced by current social conditions than the former, but they're there for both. Lastly, the best way for someone to go is the way that they can see. There are trade-offs for every choice. Someone else's choices might seem only slightly better than a prison sentence to me but it's up to them. If they ask me what I think about whether or not they should live in the suburbs, I'll list all the reasons why I loathe the suburbs as a general category, with the caveat that not all suburbs are alike. But if they choose to live there, even after hearing my reasons for disliking the suburbs, then it's right for them and that's the end of the story as far as I'm concerned.
Author moimeme Posted July 18, 2004 Author Posted July 18, 2004 Yes, but they move to the suburbs and then come to LS and complain that the suburbs are all the things you would've warned them about and that they are unhappy there - now what do you tell them? Midori, I'm not questioning choices that people are happy with. If Madamoiselle Frou Frou wants a $26. K rock on her mitt and Monsieur Le Moneybags or even Monsieur Le Poorhouse And Massively In Debt believes that he should buy it for her, peachy keen and bless them both. But Madamoiselle Frou Frou wants a $26. K ring because she believes that it means the Man of Her Dreams doesn't love her if he doesn't fork out the sheckels. Now do we change the attitude or suggest she get herself a Monsieur Le Moneybags? That is my question. People who are happy in their assumptions, stereotypes, whatever - fine, and may they live long and prosper. It's the ones who are finding that not everyone, and specifically not the person they wish to form a bond with, thinks the same way who then complain.
midori Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme But Madamoiselle Frou Frou wants a $26. K ring because she believes that it means the Man of Her Dreams doesn't love her if he doesn't fork out the sheckels. Now do we change the attitude or suggest she get herself a Monsieur Le Moneybags? That is my question. I think the most a person can do is to give their opinion when asked. It may be taken under advisement, or not. If someone posts about wanting a $26 K ring that her beloved isn't willing to provide, then I might say that in my view a ring is not indicative of love. She might continue to believe that she needs her $26 K ring. So my opinion isn't working for her. That's fine. If she disagrees with my opinion but questions me about it, wanting to probe my logic, I'll elaborate for her. Maybe my opinion still won't work for her. I don't set out to change her attitude. That's for her to do if it seems like the right thing to her.
midori Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme Yes, but they move to the suburbs and then come to LS and complain that the suburbs are all the things you would've warned them about and that they are unhappy there - now what do you tell them? Then that's what they'll do. I suppose I could say "I told you so," but that's usually not very helpful. And I hate it when people say that to me. To expand on that last thought, sometimes social norms are very good cues that people ignore at their peril. It's easy to rationalize things, and it's hard to figure out where you should allow for differences and where you should be firm in toeing the line that most people seem to agree is reasonable. People wouldn't refer to norms if they weren't useful. For example in the last year or so I've had several mini-shocks as I've realized that the ex, about whom I first started posting on LS years ago, is a real jerk. I've long since moved on and have no feelings for him, have a "new" boyfriend whom I love a lot. But I was so surprised to see that this ex was as self-absorbed and selfish as he has shown himself to be. Just had a recent exchange with him (at his initiation, I hear from him when he needs something from me) that simply floored me. I was talking to my mom about it later and she just laughed and said, "you're the only one who's still surprised at him." He failed to meet the mark when he was my boyfriend many many times. And while my friends and family weren't rushing to point out his shortcomings to me, when I asked them for their opinion, they cautioned me. But I dismissed the norms they were referencing as not being applicable to my specific situation with that ex. Well, live and learn. I had to learn the hard way. If I'd been a little more unyielding about certain expectations I might have seen my ex's true colors much sooner.
Author moimeme Posted July 18, 2004 Author Posted July 18, 2004 People wouldn't refer to norms if they weren't useful Hm. I still have an intrinsic horror of blindly accepting 'norms' without them having to pass some sort of scrutiny or test of validity/reasonableness. That once in a while we ignore a 'norm' and come to grief because of it isn't plausible reason for accepting all norms and I imagine you'd agree. in my view a ring is not indicative of love. She might continue to believe that she needs her $26 K ring. So my opinion isn't working for her But is it an opinion or is/was it a norm which has fallen by the wayside and deserves to be reinvigorated? Ought we encourage people to judge the amount they are loved by how much goodies they are given? Or do we try to make a plausible case that that particular new norm may not be all that desirable? Case in point: there are a number of places on the planet (which shall remain nameless lest a whole debate head off in that direction) where corruption has become the 'norm'. Could this have been halted when it first began to develop? We are told that Britain is in crisis over alcoholism; should the 'norm' that it's cool and fun and expected to go out and get drunk regularly have been allowed to become a norm at all or should people who were concerned about the implications looked for ways to avoid that happening?
midori Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme People wouldn't refer to norms if they weren't useful Hm. I still have an intrinsic horror of blindly accepting 'norms' without them having to pass some sort of scrutiny or test of validity/reasonableness. That once in a while we ignore a 'norm' and come to grief because of it isn't plausible reason for accepting all norms and I imagine you'd agree. I think you're perhaps overlooking the fact that you yourself hold certain norms as givens -- we all do. There are certain norms that every sub-group holds to be true, different groups focus on different things. For example, it's a norm in my community to view people who use certain insulting slurs as a) uneducated and unintelligent, and b) malicious. And while it's a reasonable assumption to make in many cases, it's not always true. Does that stop you from instinctively cringing when you hear such words, and from assuming that the person who uttered them is at minimum ignorant, and possibly also quite malicious? I'll admit up-front that that is my initial reaction, and very often the only reaction I have. But that doesn't mean my assumptions about the individual are correct: he or she might be very well educated, and might not be at all malicious. Just because a norm seems out-of-whack to some doesn't mean that it is. The thing about norms is that they wouldn't exist if they weren't working for lots of people. Doesn't mean they work for everyone. Doesn't mean there isn't, in theory, a better way. But often the "better way" is only better on some dimensions. But is it an opinion or is/was it a norm which has fallen by the wayside and deserves to be reinvigorated? The only one who can determine that is the person who holds that norm to be true. Ought we encourage people to judge the amount they are loved by how much goodies they are given? Or do we try to make a plausible case that that particular new norm may not be all that desirable? You don't have to encourage anything you disagree with -- by disagreeing. State your opinion. Make the case for your plausible alternative. And then respect the other enough to let them incorporate that, or not, into their own thinking, however is right for them. Case in point: there are a number of places on the planet (which shall remain nameless lest a whole debate head off in that direction) where corruption has become the 'norm'. Could this have been halted when it first began to develop? Who knows, and to be honest in my opinion the corruption was not just a matter of norms. I think that's too complex a sitution to think that it could be changed simply by pointing out to others that it's not in their best interests to have a corrupted government. We are told that Britain is in crisis over alcoholism; should the 'norm' that it's cool and fun and expected to go out and get drunk regularly have been allowed to become a norm at all or should people who were concerned about the implications looked for ways to avoid that happening? Well let's see: there was an attempt to do just that in the U.S. about eighty years ago, and it failed miserably. People come to see things in their own terms, not because someone who's convinced that they know best harps at them about their foibles or imposes their will upon them "for their own good." And while alcoholism in the UK may well be a problem, at least people there are socializing face to face (if inebriated face to face)! If the solution to a perceived problem doesn't acknowledge all of the dimensions a given phenomenon operates in, the solution will probably just cause its own new set of problems. To quote Sting, "people go crazy in congregations, they only get better one by one." In their own time, in their own way, as makes sense to them.
dudesomewhere Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 see moi? your inquire is my point...I'm sure you know the points I was trying to get across before. And if you don't remember am I that unimportant? ooowooohoo
Author moimeme Posted July 18, 2004 Author Posted July 18, 2004 see moi? your inquire is my point...I'm sure you know the points I was trying to get across before. And if you don't remember am I that unimportant? ooowooohoo Huh? Midori I don't believe that anywhere have I argued, or even desired to argue, a case for browbeating people into accepting a single opinion, though it begins to appear that your replies are designed to persuade me against that course. I am trying to discuss the nature of 'norms', especially societal norms. I am a relativist; meta-ethics taught me that, but it also taught me the distinction between a widely held value and a rationale used manipulatively to engineer an end. So, for instance, there is a widely held value that human life is sacred. Prior to WWII, on the other hand, the value of nationalism was manipulated - and became an accepted 'norm' that justified some horrific actions. That a viewpoint becomes common is not sufficient, to me, at least, to give it respect or honour, so to argue that The thing about norms is that they wouldn't exist if they weren't working for lots of people is the ad populum fallacy. That bigotry may have worked for lots of people was never sufficient to confer ethical validity on that point of view. I will never, ever, accept that an opinion, particularly one that causes injury to humans, is a valid opinion just because 'everybody thinks so'. People come to see things in their own terms, not because someone who's convinced that they know best harps at them about their foibles or imposes their will upon them "for their own good." You are talking about message, and I agree. However there is a multibillion dollar advertising industry and another multibillion dollar PR industry who thrive on the fact that attitudes and opinions can be changed if you employ what's known about methods of persuasion so I can't agree that people's opinions can't be changed. My question is should they, and if so, how. If the media has no compunction about persuading people that having a big hunk of pressurized carbon on your hand means someone loves you, why ought people who think that viewpoint is harmful to human relationships not attempt to change people's opinions away from that particular point of view? And, yes, I am prey to certain beliefs. I never want to fossilize into a set of beliefs that is unfair, unreasonable, or harmful so I am forever questioning my own set of norms. LS does a great job of giving me fodder for that!
ladyangel Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 I couldn't have said it better, Midori. In brief, in a free world (which WE have, thank God) people are able to make their own choices. Sure, they have to live with the consequences. And if they complain about some of those consequences, so be it. I think that's "normal." Not everybody can be happy about everything all of the time. Places like LS are designed for people to come to for help with situations they've found themselves in, by their own fault or sometimes through no fault of their own. A lot of times other people have had similar experiences and can share the knowledge they've gained from those experiences. Sometimes people come to LS and places like it just to vent. Much like going to a counselor, talking can be good therapy. When you get things out in the open and read the words over and over again, in addition to the words and opinions of others, it can help you gain new insight. Maybe it will help you to see mistakes you have made and learn from them. Most people are not coming here to have someone tell them they are crazy, misinformed, or that their way of thinking is just plain wrong. They come for information and support. They can take all our opinions and decide which will work for them. After all, we're all different. We all make mistakes. And hopefully most of us learn from those mistakes. Also, I don't think it is just women who do the things listed in this thread. I think men have their own complaints and expectations. It's just that women are more communicative and vocal about them.
Author moimeme Posted July 18, 2004 Author Posted July 18, 2004 This thread is supposed to be about societal norms, not about answering LS posts.
midori Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme I will never, ever, accept that an opinion, particularly one that causes injury to humans, is a valid opinion just because 'everybody thinks so'. But I'm afraid that there are different types of norms. Was it right for the civil rights movement to basically impose from above on American society at large the notion that discrimination against non-white people is unjust and wrong? I think so -- because people's biases were causing them to act in ways that hurt other people. But someone thinking she needs a big diamond ring, or is hurt because her boyfriend goes out with his friends sometimes and doesn't always invite her, has opinions that are affecting only her. And yes, her boyfriend, but again, they wouldn't be together if they didn't see eye to eye on certain things. You are talking about message, and I agree. However there is a multibillion dollar advertising industry and another multibillion dollar PR industry who thrive on the fact that attitudes and opinions can be changed if you employ what's known about methods of persuasion so I can't agree that people's opinions can't be changed. The advertisers just keep going with their spiel. Some people pay attention, others don't. Most of us selectively listen: the advertisements that effectively persuade me of one thing or another may not be the things that effectively persuade you. It will depend on the topic, for starters. But the approch will matter too. My question is should they, and if so, how "Should they?" You mean, like some kind of social engineering program: here's what everyone must think about A, B, and C. If you don't agree you should listen again? Is that what you mean? And if so, who would determine what A, B, and C are? Opinions can change. Sure they can. Advertising can be effective, although I think there are lots of variables that will affect its effectiveness, and its far from an exact science. If the media has no compunction about persuading people that having a big hunk of pressurized carbon on your hand means someone loves you, why ought people who think that viewpoint is harmful to human relationships not attempt to change people's opinions away from that particular point of view? The advertisers' goal in promoting diamonds is to sell diamonds. What is your goal? To save people from forming opinions that you believe to not be in their best interests? ... how would you decide what their best interests are? I don't know about you, but I know that I don't know enough about the context of other people's lives to determine whether or not a given viewpoint is in their best interests. Sometimes I think I can tell when someone is operating with a mental framework that's hurting their interests, but even then I'm aware that I don't know enough about who they are and what makes them tick to really know if holding a given belief is detrimental to them. I hate those diamond commercials by the way... especially the one set in Venice. Vomit-inducing. I always change the channel, even if only for the 45 seconds the commerical lasts.
Recommended Posts