Author Topic: Day without a woman - wut?  (Read 5919 times)

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #50 on: March 13, 2017, 12:11:24 PM »
Yeah, you're going to get skew from the "Nuclear Family" group where hubby works, and the wife does the sundry day to day shopping as her "job." Considering that in many homes the "routine expenses" comprise a plurality of costs after the utilities/mortgage/rent, that would skew retail stats strongly towards women as the buyer.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #51 on: March 14, 2017, 10:51:28 AM »
I let others weigh in on "spending", I thought it made no sense at the time but someone beat me to it. Spending doesn't have any relevance. The statement you made: "Women spend collectively twice as much as men do in the USA." is incomplete at best.

Many sources indicate that consumer spending is at that or a greater ratio, but when you think about everything being purchased, including vehicles, homes, etc - who knows. I can't find any credible source that talks about overall purchasing decisions for a household. I did manage to scroll past an astonishing number of articles discussing which gender spends more on valentine's day - I don't recommend that.

I think you missed the point of the spending issue.  If women control twice as much of the disposable income of a family (which does not generally include major purchases like a house), then it is women who have the direct power to choose to support other women, at least at the retail level.  How do these issues persist without the complicit participation of women?

I don't think its a great point because honestly "women" don't act on a collective basis, they don't share a hive mind and they have different views on every issue.

Quote
The fact that women are doing most of the retailing and etailing simply highlights the gap between gender roles in the household. When the wife buys all the clothes and food and everything else for the kids, as well as buying stuff for the husband, that doesn't scream equality and power to me.

Again, that's the least accurate version of what's occurring.  For most of the prior century men paid the bills and controlled the money cause that was "man's work" and that was an abuse of women who didn't understand their own finances and didn't have credit histories.  Now that women are controlling more of the financial clout of a family than men (normally for the simple reason that women on tend to be the partner that chooses to stay home or work less, which gives them the extra time to do so) that is somehow demeaning?   See my very first comment about the problem with this "movement" being its absolute refusal to acknowledge any gains and to turn even a prior demand into a new grievance.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #52 on: March 14, 2017, 11:13:20 AM »
No, they can't control other women's circumstances by discretionary spending unless they make a strong effort to identify which corporations are treating women worse (Uber?). Very few consumers make buying decisions on principles against cost and quality. Boycotts are notoriously hard to organize, the only ones I've recall recently are the Trump related ones and Chick-fil-A. You often have blowback spending from the people on the other side of the political argument in support of the targeted company. Feminists just declared Company X to be anti-woman? By golly, I'm gonna order something from them, I hate feminists!

Equality certainly means equality of opportunity and couples of whatever gender can divide the labor of their household however they want. I find it an indicator of a lack of equality that this is highly skewed. I imagine many men in many areas would find it difficult to be the stay-at-home Dad from a social standpoint, even if that's what they preferred to do.

Currently, 16% of stay-at-home parents are men, many of these because they can't find a job so that's how they can contribute. (these census figures exclude same-sex partners, single dads, and fathers in families where both parents do not work).

I say that we have a societal problem with equality if that number is far off from 50%, with a possible skew for those women who are nursing infants.

My proposition is that until correlation disappears between genders and any form of employment statistic, we still have work to do as a society. This doesn't mean I favor any particular political remedy, in fact I don't support that at all. More introspection, support, and discussion - which is what Day without a Woman should have been trying to accomplish.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #53 on: March 14, 2017, 11:49:58 AM »
Equality certainly means equality of opportunity and couples of whatever gender can divide the labor of their household however they want. I find it an indicator of a lack of equality that this is highly skewed.

Do you?  Cause that's absolute cop-out that completely neglects any rationale analysis of the impact of choices.  Universities have been hard selling engineering and computer science and other high paying options to women for decades, and we still have women choosing careers as public school teachers at far greater rates than as scientists.  Why is that?  It's not discrimination, its what we were talking about before, women have different goals in seeking a career.  Money is the primary motivator for the vast majority of men, and its not for the vast majority of women.  If you have kids you'd recognize another phenomenum, the young teacher you loved with your first kid is retired by the time your second kid gets to the elementary school.  It's really not rocket science, when one parent wants to spend more time with the children and the other has an income that's twice as large because of their own friggin' choices, what is going to happen.

Quote
I imagine many men in many areas would find it difficult to be the stay-at-home Dad from a social standpoint, even if that's what they preferred to do.


That's true, my family would have had to accept a 75% cut income for us to do that, because my wife only wanted to work in jobs that took 90 hours a week but paid public interest rates.  For us, we weren't able to make a choice just based on preference.  But we know plenty of families where the wife had the better job and the made the exact opposite decision.

Quote
Currently, 16% of stay-at-home parents are men, many of these because they can't find a job so that's how they can contribute. (these census figures exclude same-sex partners, single dads, and fathers in families where both parents do not work).

By the way, the idea that stay at home men are out of work bums, is one of the grossest stereotypes around.  If you really want equality you shouldn't even imply it.  I've never once heard someone say the wife stays at home because she can't find a job.

Quote
I say that we have a societal problem with equality if that number is far off from 50%, with a possible skew for those women who are nursing infants.

What logic do you base that on when there are known differences in values between genders?  It seems like you, more than me, believe women have to men to have equality.

Quote
My proposition is that until correlation disappears between genders and any form of employment statistic, we still have work to do as a society. This doesn't mean I favor any particular political remedy, in fact I don't support that at all. More introspection, support, and discussion - which is what Day without a Woman should have been trying to accomplish.

The fact that you uncritically assume that we have to have equality of outcomes to have equality, rather than equality of opportunity (which given college programs and incentives provided to females but not males, we are far past equality of opportunity) is exactly reflective of your own complete failure to recognize progress and to recognize the differences between women and men that are inherently reflected in the choices each makes rather than the words they use.  Did you not learn the expression, actions speak louder than words?

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #54 on: March 14, 2017, 12:25:01 PM »
I agree with many of Seriati's points on this topic, including the one about stay-at-home dads. But I found this quote in particular telling:

I say that we have a societal problem with equality if that number is far off from 50%, with a possible skew for those women who are nursing infants.

A possible skew? Lol. It might be medically possible to a woman to go back to work no too long after giving birth, but that would be an involved plan that would have to be worked out. It's so much more convenient for her to be home with the newborn that it's a joke (for her and for the infant). I know families where the mat leave was split between the husband and the wife more or less equally, but I've not heard of a case where the mother went back to work instantly and the dad took the entire mat leave from the word go. That's because it's not logistically sound to do it that way. And once you have a situation with the mother home for several months in a row and the father working, if you're going to pick one income to use for the family, it's a "duh" obvious option to use his. This is especially so if they're going to have a 2nd child in short proximity to the first.

The numbers may still be a tad low on a societal level for fathers being willing to be stay-at-home dads, but as Seriati points out it's about recognizing actual progress and not pretending that uneven numbers of stay-at-home moms vs. dads is somehow meant to be at parity in the first place. Maybe once we have robot nurses that could change...

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #55 on: March 14, 2017, 01:47:33 PM »
I'm saying that with equality of opportunity (with everything that entails, including a lack of societal bias to one choice over another) we would see equivalent outcomes.

I didn't make up that bit about husbands, it came from a study. Maybe I should have cited it, or maybe you should have assumed I wasn't all about gross stereotypes. The fact that you identify this as a stereotype rather highlights the lack of equality that I'm talking about.

Quote
While almost one out of five fathers indicate they are staying at home to
take care of the house and family, still over 70 percent indicate, indirectly, that if they were able
to, they would work.

paper

The value differences and choices between genders is very much shaped by the lack of equal treatment in those choices. There are myriad examples, I don't think you really need me to dig up those anecdotes.

We could look to Sweden as an example that this isn't a fully inherent, immutable choice - but rather a cultural bias.

Quote
Yet Sweden still has a way to go in terms of equality in the workplace.

While 82 percent of children have two working parents, only 42 percent of women work full-time compared to 74 percent of men, according to Statistics Sweden.

article

A way to go indeed, but adopting some of their ideals would get us closer to them.



Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #56 on: March 14, 2017, 02:54:56 PM »
Quote
Currently, 16% of stay-at-home parents are men, many of these because they can't find a job so that's how they can contribute. (these census figures exclude same-sex partners, single dads, and fathers in families where both parents do not work).

That smug unsubstantiated factoid you just sneered out proves that you're the greatest enemy to "equality of opportunity" in this conversation.  Equality of opportunity would mean that it's feasible and socially acceptable for men to be stay at home dads as it is for women.  If men had such choices, rather than brainwashed from birth that it's their duty to "provide" so that women can go spending 2/3 of the money, THEN you would see something much closer to the parity that you posture yourself as championing. 

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #57 on: March 14, 2017, 03:26:27 PM »
I'm saying that with equality of opportunity (with everything that entails, including a lack of societal bias to one choice over another) we would see equivalent outcomes.

Based on what?  The only place I've ever seen this theory espoused is in radical literature.  In virtually all other contexts we acknowledge that men and women have differences that lead them to different outcomes.  If you can't acknowledge anything else, you should be able to acknowledge the differences in physical size and strength, aggression, pain tolerance and child birth.  Do you really think that carrying children for 9 months and physically feeding them from one's own body, with massive amounts of specific hormonal changes has no impact on behavior but for what culture as taught someone?  Lol.  But there is every reason to believe that the differences are greater than that and not purely an artifact of acculturation, as you seem to have internalized (I suspect without any real proof of the theory).

You should also be able to see varied examples of gender specific differences in behaviors in many many places in the animal kingdom.  Which ought to cause you to question whether the human animal just by reason alone has created a false pattern of behavior that has no basis in their physiology.

Can humans choose to do things differently?  Of course, but we should acknowledge that we're doing things differently not because it's "more natural" or what any of the people actually involved want (no more women allowed to become teachers, you have to go become an engineer instead), but because we believe our own "rationalization" of the real nature of people is more valid (without any actual evidence that this is true).  Own the unhappiness that you trigger.

Quote
I didn't make up that bit about husbands, it came from a study. Maybe I should have cited it, or maybe you should have assumed I wasn't all about gross stereotypes. The fact that you identify this as a stereotype rather highlights the lack of equality that I'm talking about.

Agreed.  Men who choose to stay home have no equality in the way they are treated and neither feminists or society as a whole, until very recently, has given two figs about that.  Because, in my view, they don't really care about equality, the leaders care about political power.

Quote
The value differences and choices between genders is very much shaped by the lack of equal treatment in those choices. There are myriad examples, I don't think you really need me to dig up those anecdotes.


Again I agree, there is active discrimination against stay at home dads.  But the charge of the day wasn't to call for more support for stay at home dads.

I think you need to support your premise that nothing but societal pressure is responsible for all differences in outcomes, when there are real differences in biology and rational choice.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #58 on: March 14, 2017, 03:44:37 PM »
Quote
Again I agree, there is active discrimination against stay at home dads.

And Drake and much of third wave "feminism" is a part of that active discrimination.

While Drake's "can't get a job" is a poisonous and unsubstantiated sneer, I suspect that it is true that a large number of stay at home dads ended up there, like Mr. Mom, because they found that their wife was able to make more money in the workplace with an over 40 hour a week job, and that staying home with the kids was the better contribution.  Not as Drake posits, the only contribution they could make. 

Quote
I think you need to support your premise that nothing but societal pressure is responsible for all differences in outcomes, when there are real differences in biology and rational choice.

You're too kind to him.  What Drake's actually saying is even more foolish and hateful -- he has poo poohed but anti-woman social pressure is responsible for all significant difference in outcome. (Drake did acknowledge passingly that nursing mothers might account for some insignificant difference).
« Last Edit: March 14, 2017, 03:48:07 PM by Pete at Home »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #59 on: March 14, 2017, 04:31:50 PM »
Pete, you are absolutely right, and should Dads have a protest where they all stay home to take care of the kids and raise awareness of gender inequality, I'll support them too. Part of the reason I cited Sweden is because of progressive steps like making joint custody the default in divorce proceedings.

As for we came by our gender cultural norms, I won't begin to try to unravel all the way back to agricultural economics and larger family size.

Physical strength is waning as any kind of workplace differentiation as more and more jobs move to information labor. Although the lack of women in mining, as an example, has been well-documented to be due (at least in part) to male resistance, harassment and general discouragement as it is to ability. Robots will finish that off, because they are much better at lifting than either gender of homo sapiens.

When I talk about the impact of nursing infants, I'm considering the average family size of 2-3 children, average of six months until weaning, the number of women who don't breastfeed at all, the number of women who breastfeed by pumping and storing.

If possible, I'd call these effects discriminatory against both men and women, but the impact on women is to reduce their earnings, while the impact on men is to keep them from their kids.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #60 on: March 14, 2017, 10:31:34 PM »
Thanks for clarifying. I didn't know that about Sweden, a place I had associated with misandric feminism what, for instance, calls it violent misogyny for a man to piss in a urinal.   

I absolutely agree that parenting related job issues disproportionately affect women. And classifying them as pure "women's issues" itself hurts women.  I know the Swedes do characterize a lot of the reforms supposedly sought here as "parents rights" rather than women's rights.  I think that our breaking those rights apart by gender is part of why we lag behind Sweden in these areas.


Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #61 on: March 17, 2017, 10:16:54 PM »
Quote
  but the impact on women is to reduce their earnings, while the impact on men is to keep them from their kids.

You got it about 1/2 way. The impact on women is to reduce their earnings AND allow them to enjoy time with their children in their formative years, while foregoing the rigours of a full time job.

The feminist party line is generally that for a woman to stay at home with her kids is a "sacrifice" on behalf of her family with no acknowledgement of the obvious benefits, which women are clearly choosing happily every day.

My suspicion is that the women who lead the feminist movement are typically highly educated, career oriented type A personalities who see their career as the be all end all of their lives. So for them it's obvious that any woman who stays at home is being pressured into making this "sacrifice" and couldn't possibly be choosing it due to personal desire.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #62 on: March 17, 2017, 11:10:41 PM »
My suspicion is that the women who lead the feminist movement are typically highly educated, career oriented type A personalities who see their career as the be all end all of their lives. So for them it's obvious that any woman who stays at home is being pressured into making this "sacrifice" and couldn't possibly be choosing it due to personal desire.

Don't forget single, unmarried men. As well and the DINC(Dual Income, No Children) groupings as well. Which also incidentally describes a very large number of "Millennials" at present.  Which goes back to that old maxim about being liberal when your 20, and conservative by 30. Because traditionally, by age 30, they're parents. Not so much these days.

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #63 on: March 18, 2017, 11:45:31 PM »
Incidentally, I would love to have the choice to stay home with my daughter. While our family might not have made this choice in any event due to the massive income differential between myself and my wife - it would be great if being a stay at home dad were socially acceptable - which it isn't of course, outside of a narrow range of exceptional middle aged men whose jobs can be done easily from home (freelancers etc...). And even those few men who can make this choice are looked down on by women and other men.

I do occasionally hear feminists pay lip service to this concept, but I doubt they care about men to any degree except as a means to "help" women (as they see it) as the only real end goal. Moreover, I think their goal is not to extend the choice that women have to men, but rather, to take away and render socially unacceptable the choice of women to leave the workplace. They see the "glass ceiling" as a product of disparity between nale and female workplace participation and women who choose to withdraw from the workplace are derided and seen as gender traitors. Modern feminists seek to curtail the choice of women to only one acceptable option: working full time with daycare and nannies caring for the children.

As I noted, it's consistent with my impression that the spearhead of modern feminism sees economic power measured in dollars and "career" as the be all end all - if they could abolish the housewife or the "stay at home mom" they'd do it without hesitation.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #64 on: March 20, 2017, 09:18:54 AM »
I will say, I don't find it quite as harsh here as jasonr does where he is, we have multiple stay at home dads in the neighborhood, supplemented with a large number of men who work from home frequently or are the primary person at home when the kids get home.  There's still a big disparity though between dads and moms with elementary school kids.  There is definitely a bias and a pressure.  I've heard one of the dads who stays at home get asked by the moms (when they'll even talk to him) about when he's going to go back to work, if he's going back, or some iteration of that question, at least of dozens of times (considering that I'm not there everyday, that's a remarkable frequency).  I've never once heard them ask another mom the same thing. 

Most of the dads have trouble setting up play dates with anyone, whether its just general discrimination or whether the moms are worried about "how it'd look" is unclear.  They even have trouble setting things up between the dads (small pool of men there, with little in common other than staying home). 

They definitely have problems with conversations, both from being excluded and from finding things in common to talk about.  My wife makes a point to include the men, and she's flat out said that there are certain women who simply refuse to speak with them in any context.

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #65 on: March 20, 2017, 12:27:43 PM »
Seriati my wife is a stay at homer and believe me there is no end to the "when are you going back to work?" questions followed by blank stares when she replies that she isn't. One longtime "friend" recently told her to her face that she couldn't stay at home because she needs to feel "productive". My wife seems to get along far better these days with her single and stay at home friends - there seems to be this undeclared cold war between mommies that work and mommies that stay at home. My personal take is that the stay at homers like my wife feel judged by the career women and the career women feel equally judged by the stay at homers.

As for the stay at home dads, there are certainly some in my neighborhood although it is hard to say if they are just working from home, on pat leave temporarily or staying home and not working full time. My wife indicates that they are a rarity at the playgroups and classes she attends with our toddler.

For me the proof is in the pudding - if a woman wants to be a stay at home mom and be supported by her spouse she still can - and we know other couples, who like us, are in this camp. It is far less common than it was and of course the careers will attack this choice in subtle (and not so subtle ways) but it happens. I ask sometimes my wife if she would be cool supporting me and her working while I stay home. She laughs - and of course I am kidding her because this would never work financially for our family, but I KNOW with certainty that if this had been even an option seriously on the table there would have been no marriage. That's not a dig at my wife - I believe that the number of women who would consider supporting a husband full time with him carilng for the kids is small indeed - basically negligible, even among the biggest earners in the career set and even in liberal cosmopolitan cities like Toronto.

The irony is I'd be a great house husband - I like cleaning and love cooking. I could enjoy more time at home and doing more things with my daughter outside of weekends. I couldn't care less about my "career" in of itself and don't feel defined by it. I don't get bored doing tasks many consider menial - in fact I like them.

 But I would struggle deeply with the sense of emasculation and judgment and contempt I'd feel, which would dwarf anything stay at home mom's have to deal with. At least their sense of femininity isn't derided, whereas even I can't help but look down on a stay at home man as being unmanly and pathetic.

If I felt that modern feminists truly wanted to change attitudes like that I'd be able to get behind that. But I really really doubt that is what they are about. The push is more daycare, more pat leave (as a means of letting women retyrn back to work sooner) and more deligitimizing the single incone household.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 12:31:46 PM by jasonr »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #66 on: March 20, 2017, 02:13:01 PM »
as a means of letting women retyrn back to work sooner

I know it's a typo but my brain decided to interpret it as a dig on the spelling of "womyn" :P

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #67 on: March 20, 2017, 03:38:33 PM »
Seriati:
Quote
When an issue is a societal issue, all members of that society have a stake, sometimes it has more impact on one group or another, and we, as a society, should take that impacted group's opinion into account and even give it a heavier weight, but it's poor logic to believe that society can do nothing but defer to the most impacted group's view, and that all other views are meaningless.  In a nutshell, if you aren't worried about credibility to people outside the group, then you shouldn't expect people outside the group to support you. 

I'm just going to point out that this is why 'privilege' has become a more prominent talking point.  "This thing you are complaining about doesn't make sense from my perspective, so I'm going to continue to believe it's not really a problem and withhold my support."  As you point out, this can stall progress on the issue.  Where I differ from you is that I think it's your failure, not theirs.

Quote
Quote
We also have heard that certain types of success are tied to ability to generate business, and personality.  Clearly there could be no sexism involved there.

Whether there is or not, it's not generally possible to address.  Should you be forced to buy All instead of Tide because one has more female board members?  Or more female shareholders, or a female CEO?   If there are three women owned stores in your town, should you be forced to shop at them even if they don't sell what you need?  How do you address that on average full time working men work five more hours a week than full time working women?

It's great to express snide maxims like you're making a point, but if you can't articulate a workable solution, all you're doing is patting yourself on the back for something that doesn't effect you and costs you nothing. 

Workable solutions are tricky.  Honestly, we are still stuck on recognizing why things are they way they are.  There's a lot of people who will hear "full time working men work five more hours a week than full time working women" and think "oh, there you go.  That's probably why there's an earnings gap, and why there are more male CEOs."  But why are they working more hours? 

The same thing goes when we identify attributes that correlate with earnings and positions.  Why do those attributes land you there?  Should they?

These top level explanations are not evidence that there's not a problem, or that there's nothing to be done.  They shouldn't end the conversation.  That they tend to is a symptom of the inertia of inequality. 

Don't jump to the conclusion that I'd like to put the state in charge of correcting all of this at every level.  Mainly I'd like people - including many women who accept the status quo without complaint - to try harder to understand where feminists are coming from; to stop being so stingy with "credibility". 

Quote
Many many of the differences in outcomes between men and women come from men and women having different goals.  Complaining about a wage gap, when income is the primary motivator for something like 80% of working men and only 30% of working women is nonsensical.  Women have different motivations and refusing to acknowledge that their working habits tend to meet those goals rather than men's goals makes this comparison meaningless.

How nonsensical is it to demand equality, when we want different things, and then to use a "male" measure to claim it doesn't exist?

This, again, is finding a surface explanation and then proposing that we stop thinking about it.  OK, women want different things.  Why is that?  How are their goals shaped by what they expect to happen?  (BTW, which women in what place and how was the question phrased?)

Quote
Quote
Nobody needs to quote Harrison Bergeron to me, we don't need to equalize outcomes at any cost.  But it's pretty funny when the way male-dominated systems work is used as justification for the fact that they aren't female-dominated, unless you're intentionally saying "because we're in charge" is all the answer required.

"We're" not in charge.  No one is.  But you can't override people's choices and you can't expect them to not have consequences either.

You're saying that men aren't predominantly in charge, relative to women?  What if we look at CEO positions, or board seats in general, or elected government positions?  I'm trying to understand how they aren't. 

Quote
Quote
Seriati:

"How 1960's of you.  Which parent picks kids up is a family decision, isn't it?"

Yes, it is.  But discussion about patterns in these decisions, and how they relate to workplace norms and career arcs when you take gender into account, is completely on point.  Men may tell their wives that they can't pick up their kids because they won't be taken seriously at work, and women may face social consequences that men don't face for opting out of this task.

I'm guessing you're either not married, or pretty old.  I don't know any man around my age or younger who would get away with telling their wives they had to pick up the kids because he wouldn't be taken seriously if he did it.  The only time that argument ever came up in my life is when we were considering whether we both should hyphenate.  You're living in the 1960's, seriously. 

I'm married, roughly 40, and this conversation hasn't happened in my household because I'm not an idiot.  I'm not "living in the 1960s", but other people are.  Did you really assume I was describing something I thought was acceptable?

I have dozens of firsthand data points from people around my age.  It's pretty common for men to assume that their wives will handle logistics involving their children during working hours.  One common pattern would be men who consider it acceptable if their wives - who have been at home with children for a number of years - take a job outside the home as long as it doesn't require paying too much for daycare or for the man to have to pick up duties the wife had handled previously. 

In fact, this pattern is preached from the pulpit in more than one church.  Men should be the primary breadwinners, and women should be at home with the children. 

I find your skepticism that many men assume that their job takes priority over child related duties kind of baffling.  Do you not know many conservative religious people?

Quote
Quote
Explaining the earning gap isn't the same as addressing the reasons for it. 

It literally is, but perhaps you mean something else.

It's not a justification.  It doesn't solve the problem, or show that there is no problem to solve. 

So what do we do about it? 

Some proposed solutions might address something that seems more like a symptom than a cause.  But you have to keep in mind that there are chicken-and-egg sorts of cyclical and self reinforcing patterns.  Sometimes an affirmative action technique is the best option available.  I'm open to them on a case by case basis.  But in the meantime, I'm hopeful that more people can acknowledge that complicated, cyclical, self reinforcing discrepancies are worth acknowledging and discussing and labeling as unfair even if there is no clear and obviously fair remedy.  Because *just that* helps to correct the problems, by informing individual choices.   

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #68 on: March 20, 2017, 05:08:15 PM »
Scifi you've pointed out some discrepencies but provided no evidence of unfairness. None whatsoever. Even if women are called on to pick up the kids more than men, so? Is that less "fair" tban men being called on to discipline the kids more or fix the car more or spend more time at work than at home? The very focus of the feminist analysis itself hobbled by bias and tunnel vision.

I might further add tbat even if the premise that such discrepancies are bad is accepted, it does not follow that this flows from any particular injustice. There are many tradeoffs and compromises groups make for lots of reasons. Feminists assume a priori that any such downside must be caused by systemic evils or sexism or whatnot but since they are blind to every factor but their own myopic obsession with economic ends they have zero credibility to make an honest assessment of the situation in its real context.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 05:14:03 PM by jasonr »

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #69 on: March 20, 2017, 05:40:34 PM »
Here you call for evidence of unfairness:

"provided no evidence of unfairness"

and proceed to explain why you won't accept any anyway, because who can really say what is more unfair.

Quote
Feminists assume a priori that any such downside must be caused by systemic evils or sexism or whatnot but since they are blind to every factor but their own myopic obsession with economic ends they have zero credibility to make an honest assessment of the situation in its real context.

Your version of feminism is like representing "the 1%" with the Monopoly moneybags guy, or Snidely Whiplash.

Take a minute to think about how you just made a blanket statement about how feminists will behave in a generic hypothetical situation...as a criticism.

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #70 on: March 20, 2017, 05:51:57 PM »
Scifi the burden is on you to establish 1) That a given discrepency is itself bad and further 2) Unfair. You haven't done either. Rather, you simply assert the fact of the discrepancy as evidence a priori of unfairness. So if women do more laundry per capita it's manifestly bad and unfair but if, say, men do more plumbing or more renovation... Well who cares right? They are "privileged" I guess. Whatever.

As for feminism, I am not a scholar on the subject nor do I care to plumb the depths or engage in the trap of defining what is or isn't "true" or representative feminist thought. I simply keep my eyes and ears open and see the same arguments espoused again and again based on myopic or misleading biased assumptions and specious argument - all which seem directed to one end - eliminate permanent stay at home parenting in favour of universal cheap daycare. To make men pick up their "fair" share of childcare - presumably to squeeze out the hated "housewife" aka stay at home mom.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #71 on: March 20, 2017, 07:36:18 PM »
Seriati:
Quote
When an issue is a societal issue, all members of that society have a stake, sometimes it has more impact on one group or another, and we, as a society, should take that impacted group's opinion into account and even give it a heavier weight, but it's poor logic to believe that society can do nothing but defer to the most impacted group's view, and that all other views are meaningless.  In a nutshell, if you aren't worried about credibility to people outside the group, then you shouldn't expect people outside the group to support you. 

I'm just going to point out that this is why 'privilege' has become a more prominent talking point.  "This thing you are complaining about doesn't make sense from my perspective, so I'm going to continue to believe it's not really a problem and withhold my support."  As you point out, this can stall progress on the issue.  Where I differ from you is that I think it's your failure, not theirs.

I didn't say anything didn't make sense from my perspective,  or that its not really a problem or that I would or do "withhold my support."  I directly said that it's fallacious thinking to believe that only the most impacted group has anything to contribute.  In response to me saying that everyone has a contribution to make, you choose to lecture me about my supposed closed mindedness.  I'm guessing you'll stay fail to see the irony in that.

Progress "stalls" on an issue when we stop trying to reach common ground, when we stop believing that other humans are empathetic enough and smart enough to understand issues that they haven't directly experienced because they can draw from other similar experiences to find common ground.  We know that works, it's been repeatedly proven to work, in fact it's one of the most common techniques psychologists use to heal, it's one of the most common techniques all people use to persuade, yet, you seem to be positing its impossible for anyone but those impacted to even comprehend the issues meaningfully when you drop off into the mental wasteland of "privilege" discussion.

There is no part of any rational discourse that requires, or even makes it a good idea, for participants to ditch their entire referential understanding of the world when you can't even be bothered to make an argument to them on their level.  Period.  Flat out rejection of the utility and justice of the idea that your failure to make a convincing (or even in some cases plausible) argument is because everyone else is at fault.

Quote
Workable solutions are tricky.  Honestly, we are still stuck on recognizing why things are they way they are.  There's a lot of people who will hear "full time working men work five more hours a week than full time working women" and think "oh, there you go.  That's probably why there's an earnings gap, and why there are more male CEOs."  But why are they working more hours?

Lol.  No one who has put in a reasonable amount of study on this issue would hear that quote and think it explained everything (heck basic math should tell you five hours is not 20% of a work week).  But ignoring that the wage gap is largely explained and rationale is the exact same kind of surface level and unstudied thinking in the other direction.

There's also lots of reasons why they work more, also been studied before by the way. 

Quote
The same thing goes when we identify attributes that correlate with earnings and positions.  Why do those attributes land you there?  Should they?

Widely studied for decades, did you miss it?  For the most part, by the way, the answer is yes.  If you were to hire an employee and not discriminate on anything but merit, you'd end up with the same general employment results, with respect to earnings and positions.

Unless you're rejecting such discriminatory measures as paying people with more experience more?  Promoting managers from the pool of people who work the most hours and are most available to you as the employer?  Promoting and paying more to people who've worked at the company longer?  Paying people who're willing to work dangerous jobs more?  Who can provide you with knowledge in high demand fields, like technology? 

Up to you really, you're free to social engineer instead.

Quote
These top level explanations are not evidence that there's not a problem, or that there's nothing to be done.  They shouldn't end the conversation.

You may not realize it, but what you said here is actually sensible.  If you'd been paying attention, you would already know they don't end the conversation and they haven't been taken as evidence that the problem isn't real.  Instead, people with a real understanding of what's going on have been using it to make better decisions about how to encourage more favorable results.  You may even be familiar with some of them, ever hear of flex time?  or work teams?  These are changes that deliberately came into corporate culture as a direct result of gender equality studies, there have been dramatic changes in corporate culture to try and deemphasize elements that had less to do with productivity and achievement than with a boorish male culture.

Again real strides, improvement and change, that you gloss over with the quest to never be satisfied.  Better work environments for everyone.

That doesn't mean that you'll see equal outcomes.  Not unless you thought program people will you get equal outcomes.

Quote
That they tend to is a symptom of the inertia of inequality.

I'm to the point, where I'm more inclined to label your beliefs a myth than anything else.  I really don't think you've examined this critically at all. 

Quote
Don't jump to the conclusion that I'd like to put the state in charge of correcting all of this at every level.  Mainly I'd like people - including many women who accept the status quo without complaint - to try harder to understand where feminists are coming from; to stop being so stingy with "credibility".

Show me you understand any of the real progress that has occurred, and the places where it still needs work and more importantly what the actual problems are, and I may be more willing to listen to you, I've never stopped listening to feminists.  When all you got is to refer back to "issues" that haven't been real for years its harder to take you seriously. 

The best change in the narrative I ever saw was when feminists (and it was feminists) who recognized that the wage gap was rather easily explainable stopped trying to massage the stats to make it "usable" again and instead started asking the much better question of why female dominated jobs paid less than male dominated jobs of "similar" responsibility and competence (granted it wasn't always a good one to one comparison).

Quote
Quote
Many many of the differences in outcomes between men and women come from men and women having different goals.  Complaining about a wage gap, when income is the primary motivator for something like 80% of working men and only 30% of working women is nonsensical.  Women have different motivations and refusing to acknowledge that their working habits tend to meet those goals rather than men's goals makes this comparison meaningless.

How nonsensical is it to demand equality, when we want different things, and then to use a "male" measure to claim it doesn't exist?

This, again, is finding a surface explanation and then proposing that we stop thinking about it.  OK, women want different things.  Why is that?  How are their goals shaped by what they expect to happen?  (BTW, which women in what place and how was the question phrased?)

You literally just claimed internal motivations are a "surface explanation"?  Are you kidding?  Do you realize how long it took professionals to even realize that?  There's nothing that was easily realizable about the idea that even if you make opportunities unbalanced in favor of women, heavily encourage them in certain paths and hit them with hard core propaganda that they still wouldn't take certain jobs in the "equal" numbers the societal engineers wanted. 

There's nothing surface about that at all. 

Your latter questions are better questions, but again stuff that is being actively and aggressively researched.  You seem to be under a delusion that we live in a society that is trying to find ways to oppress women, when we actually live in one that is actively and aggressively trying to find ways to include them.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Nobody needs to quote Harrison Bergeron to me, we don't need to equalize outcomes at any cost.  But it's pretty funny when the way male-dominated systems work is used as justification for the fact that they aren't female-dominated, unless you're intentionally saying "because we're in charge" is all the answer required.

"We're" not in charge.  No one is.  But you can't override people's choices and you can't expect them to not have consequences either.

You're saying that men aren't predominantly in charge, relative to women?  What if we look at CEO positions, or board seats in general, or elected government positions?  I'm trying to understand how they aren't.

Well first of all it's silly to respond to that specific argument of mine it that way.  My point was that the observed consequences were the result of the invisible hand of the choices of the people we're observing, not any active top down plan of discrimination by men.

Maybe, I'm mistaken, can you confirm whether you've ever been in one of these "man" meetings where they seek to stop women? 

Quote
Quote
Quote
Seriati:

"How 1960's of you.  Which parent picks kids up is a family decision, isn't it?"

Yes, it is.  But discussion about patterns in these decisions, and how they relate to workplace norms and career arcs when you take gender into account, is completely on point.  Men may tell their wives that they can't pick up their kids because they won't be taken seriously at work, and women may face social consequences that men don't face for opting out of this task.

I'm guessing you're either not married, or pretty old.  I don't know any man around my age or younger who would get away with telling their wives they had to pick up the kids because he wouldn't be taken seriously if he did it.  The only time that argument ever came up in my life is when we were considering whether we both should hyphenate.  You're living in the 1960's, seriously. 

I'm married, roughly 40, and this conversation hasn't happened in my household because I'm not an idiot.  I'm not "living in the 1960s", but other people are.  Did you really assume I was describing something I thought was acceptable?

No.  I think you're engaged in a bias.  I can't remember what its called, but its the one where if you ask someone if they are better or worse off in the economy you'll get a certain level of positive response (like 70% think they are better off), but if you ask them if other people are better or worse you'll get a negative response (like 70% of other people are worse off), and you'll get that response in the same survey and consistently across surveys.  My charge is you think everyone else is living in the 60's, not that you personally think you are living in the 60's.  It's why you feel so comfortable talking down to others about their "privilege" because they are oppressing women 60's style.

Problem is they aren't living in the 60's.  They're living in the modern age, to people under 50 the very idea that women are less than men is almost nonsensical to the point it won't compute.

Quote
I have dozens of firsthand data points from people around my age.  It's pretty common for men to assume that their wives will handle logistics involving their children during working hours.  One common pattern would be men who consider it acceptable if their wives - who have been at home with children for a number of years - take a job outside the home as long as it doesn't require paying too much for daycare or for the man to have to pick up duties the wife had handled previously.

Lol.  Yes if the men are working and the women are not that is the expectation, and you know what when the women are working and the men stay home it's reversed.  For two earner families it depends on the jobs they each have.  Who picks up the kids is far far more a practical decision than a sexist one. 

Quote
In fact, this pattern is preached from the pulpit in more than one church.  Men should be the primary breadwinners, and women should be at home with the children.

Out of curiosity which church?  Is it yours?  How do you know what's preached there? 

Quote
I find your skepticism that many men assume that their job takes priority over child related duties kind of baffling.  Do you not know many conservative religious people?

Actually yes and plenty on the liberal extreme as well.  In fact, I know some who are so conservatively religious they would never prioritize any job or money over their children, and some who expect their wives to pick of the kids (and oddly, that's more something the wives tend to believe than the husbands - which we've never been able to understand), and some who refuse to work outside the home and do everything for their kids.  And some, who leave their boy toys at home to manage their kids (but don't even let them have cars, lol), and others whose nannies are the only people the kids ever see, and some who think its funny to call their kids every night to say goodnight (even on the weekends).

Don't know why I went there, other than to express some frustration with the small minded implication in your question.  I've never claimed there are no sexists.  What I have claimed is that our society is not sexist, and the "evidence" you cite otherwise is a joke of misinterpretation.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Explaining the earning gap isn't the same as addressing the reasons for it. 

It literally is, but perhaps you mean something else.

It's not a justification.  It doesn't solve the problem, or show that there is no problem to solve.

It actually does show that any problem to solve is not the one you are claiming.  So in a lot of ways, showing that the gap is rationally explained does literally show there is no real problem to solve.

Maybe instead of criticizing me because the stat you like is garbage, you could start with a better stat or an explanation of specific problem. 

Quote
So what do we do about it?

What should we do about a debunked stat? 

Oh I know, we should pretend it isn't a debunked stat, completely change our entire society, and disregard any one who says that's a bad idea as an "entitled" voice that should be silenced.  Sound like a plan?  If so, I have some debunked stats of my own I'd like to have addressed.

Quote
Some proposed solutions might address something that seems more like a symptom than a cause.  But you have to keep in mind that there are chicken-and-egg sorts of cyclical and self reinforcing patterns.  Sometimes an affirmative action technique is the best option available.  I'm open to them on a case by case basis.  But in the meantime, I'm hopeful that more people can acknowledge that complicated, cyclical, self reinforcing discrepancies are worth acknowledging and discussing and labeling as unfair even if there is no clear and obviously fair remedy.  Because *just that* helps to correct the problems, by informing individual choices.

Or you could just bite the bullet and learn how to read these studies for yourself so you could form a scientific opinion on their validity and not get fooled into backing power plays based on debunked arguments?

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #72 on: March 21, 2017, 01:51:17 AM »
Quote
In fact, this pattern is preached from the pulpit in more than one church.  Men should be the primary breadwinners, and women should be at home with the children.

Out of curiosity which church?  Is it yours?  How do you know what's preached there? 

Scifi is right that this is something some churches preach, and although they may perhaps not phrase it directly as a prescription, it can very well still be made clear that the 'normal and proper' organization of the family is with the man at work and the woman at home. That this is preached (let's say) can't necessarily be called a problem if that preaching is restricted to those who are members of a particular community and who don't expect outsiders to follow the same tenets. The Amish, for instance, follow many rules that they seem in no way to assume anyone else should be following, nor do they try to oblige outsiders to live like them. Therefore it doesn't follow that a particular religious community - even if they do say something 'sexist' or old-fashioned - can somehow stand for "society" and demonstrate a systemic problem. If you want to go down that road you may as well state definitively that no one should be allowed to choose a lifestyle, whether as a community or as individuals, that are different from the accepted lifestyle of urban liberals. So much for diversity.

But this kind of line continues to make me suspect that a lot of the charges of sexism in "society" are back-door commentary about the religious right in particular, and that the subject is really more about blue vs. red than about men vs. women. I'm not going to claim that there are no issues left for feminism to tackle, but it seems to me that the larger issues generally brought up in your average blog are issues that have largely already been solved in urban centers, and so one might well conclude that these treatises are strangely targeting communities that are not the intended readership of the blogs.

Whether or not jasonr is 100% on the mark about the covert intention of modern feminism, I do agree with him that the stated agenda of a lot of feminist literature I encounter is not in accord with the actual methods and goals they utilize. Suggesting a covert agenda (e.g. to destroy the old notion of family organization, or to eliminate the stay at home mom) is one possible explanation; another is sloppy implementation. Equally plausible to those is the lack of ability for a lot of people these days to think clearly, and so they will gleefully adopt contradictory axioms without realizing the implications of what they're saying. The echo chamber is louder than the internal voice of reason, and it seems nowadays that hearing something repeated gives most people a greater sense of validation than critically analyzing each point with no thought to which you would prefer to be true. A person could easily believe they are trying to save 'the family' while simultaneously employing methods and repeating slogans guaranteed to brutalize it.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #73 on: March 21, 2017, 10:51:23 AM »
Quote
In fact, this pattern is preached from the pulpit in more than one church.  Men should be the primary breadwinners, and women should be at home with the children.

Out of curiosity which church?  Is it yours?  How do you know what's preached there? 

Scifi is right that this is something some churches preach, and although they may perhaps not phrase it directly as a prescription, it can very well still be made clear that the 'normal and proper' organization of the family is with the man at work and the woman at home.

This one where he's right because there are thousands of churches and some can be found that preach anything, not because this is a majority or even common thing that occurs.  It's a libel, because he's using it as short hand to imply that religious people believe this and as a dog whistle to attract support for the correct position in the debate.

I've literally never heard that preached from any pulpit.  I have known people from exactly two churches in my life (out of hundreds), where members of the congregation had those views, and bet you even there it's not preached from the pulpit.  The side ways social pressure, the Christian education classes, the prayer meetings where the members pressure each other is a far more likely vector.  But the idea - to the left - has to be about sexist and driven preachers to fit into their idea of top down authority to be opposed (and I know for a fact in one of the two churches the minister did not support that view). 

That's why I made the challenge, I'd like to see if he has any personal knowledge of a church where that is preached.  Like many arguments that people accept as "true on their face" its always second or third hand, but since "everyone knows its true," the idea of questioning it is off the table.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #74 on: March 21, 2017, 06:30:36 PM »
The LDS Church has, at least in the past, been a strong proponent of the "Nuclear Family" model.

They're also an obvious one to point at in terms of perpetuating traditional gender roles. Of course in terms of "official materials" at this point, they're going to be a bit more difficult to pin down in a direct manner. Which is what I'd presume to be the case for any religious group with anywhere near 1 million members or more.

Too lazy to go search, but I'm sure finding references to "nurturing" and motherhood in particular should be fairly easy. Ie the "Mother's role" is to be the primary care giver for young children, while the guidance and references for men when it comes to young children in particular are going to be fairly sparse and more geared towards the disciplinary side.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #75 on: March 25, 2017, 04:27:23 PM »
I found this opinion piece an interesting summation of some of these issues.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/24/should-it-be-illegal-to-be-stay-at-home-mom-why-feminists-are-so-frustrated.html

Obviously this relies on some pretty right wing organizations for their "data," and I'm not putting forward as an argument in fact.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #76 on: March 26, 2017, 12:37:03 AM »
I found this opinion piece an interesting summation of some of these issues.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/24/should-it-be-illegal-to-be-stay-at-home-mom-why-feminists-are-so-frustrated.html

Obviously this relies on some pretty right wing organizations for their "data," and I'm not putting forward as an argument in fact.

I would like to think that "feminist" opinion pieces such as the one the article cites are in reality psy-ops designed to discredit feminism, because it's otherwise almost absurd to think that anyone not suffering from hysterical delusions could actually believe such things. Putting aside for the moment that the idea is in reality advocating for literal slavery, it isn't even internally coherent on a fascist level because it seems to imply that even if a woman can't find work she should still be barred from residing in her own home during work hours. And I suppose the way to enforce that would be to have secret police monitoring everyone's private residences for illegal parenting :p

And Seriati, I'm not entirely sure the FOX article was unfair in its presentation of the source article. Here's a quote from the source, which actually stuck me as worse than what FOX quoted:

Quote
But it’s time for a serious rethink of this kid-glove approach to women of child-bearing and child-rearing age. Holding us less accountable when it comes to our employment responsibilities is not doing anyone any favours. Not children, not fathers, not bosses — and certainly not women.

This piece of Orwellian doublespeak sends chills down my spine. The most harrowing phrase to me is actually "women of child-bearing and child-rearing age." It's the sort of language you might hear in a dystopian science fiction film from the 60's. Shortly after comes this bit:

Quote
Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that “feminism is about choice” is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history.

This bald-faced assertion is at least honest: it's not about liberating women, it's about social engineering and instructing women what to do for their own good; you know, just like how it used to be prior to feminism, just now with a different group giving them their orders. How quaint.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #77 on: March 26, 2017, 02:00:36 AM »
Another obviously dystopian angle to all that is if the women aren't allowed to raise their children, then who will do it and how, as in what will they be teaching the impressionable young minds? The state?

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #78 on: March 26, 2017, 08:05:11 AM »
Fenring for academic feminist writings I subscribe to the Donald Trump rule: YES they did really say that and NO it wasn't taken out of context.

JoshCrow

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #79 on: March 26, 2017, 08:29:36 PM »
Fenring for academic feminist writings I subscribe to the Donald Trump rule: YES they did really say that and NO it wasn't taken out of context.

Jason, that article was clickbait, I suggest it not be taken seriously.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2017, 08:37:51 PM by JoshCrow »

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #80 on: March 27, 2017, 06:55:20 AM »
Josh not referring to the article but to the quote the article was referring to.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #81 on: March 28, 2017, 02:21:53 PM »
The LDS Church has, at least in the past, been a strong proponent of the "Nuclear Family" model.

They're also an obvious one to point at in terms of perpetuating traditional gender roles. Of course in terms of "official materials" at this point, they're going to be a bit more difficult to pin down in a direct manner. Which is what I'd presume to be the case for any religious group with anywhere near 1 million members or more.

Too lazy to go search, but I'm sure finding references to "nurturing" and motherhood in particular should be fairly easy. Ie the "Mother's role" is to be the primary care giver for young children, while the guidance and references for men when it comes to young children in particular are going to be fairly sparse and more geared towards the disciplinary side.

Please avoid making such rank generalizations when you are "too lazy to search."    Male role is "geared towards the disciplinary?"  That's a hateful falsehood.

The most famous quote about fatherhood in the LDS church is David O McKan: "no success can compensate for failure in the home."

LDS chapels are more likely than any other building that I've seen or heard of to have changing tables in the men's rooms as well as the women's rooms.

The LDS.org site is so easily searchable, and the LDS general conferences are all there in searchable format and it's easy to see with a cursory search that what Drake said is complete rubbish.

https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=dad

Also, don't know what Drake was implying about "discipline" but Brigham Young, Gordon B. Hinkley, and several others have argued against corporal punishment.  It's not a church doctrine or policy, but I think on the whole you'll be hard pressed to find a more touchy-feely group of heavily involved diaper-changing dads than the mormons, at least in the Americas.  (I can't say they are the most involved dads in the world, because in Africa there's a pygmy tribe where the men literally nurse their babies).

As for the "Nuclear family," that term doesn't mean what Drake thinks it means.  Yes, Mormons promote the roles of husband and wife, but the Nuclear Family downgrades the role of extended family and community, which mormons decidedly do NOT do.  Mormons are proponents of the pre-1950s extended family, and so what Drake said there is misleading as well.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 02:27:31 PM by Pete at Home »

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #82 on: March 28, 2017, 02:35:53 PM »
More misandric abuses of third wave feminism here:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/apr/28/malepillwomensloss

Quote
While we are transfixed by the idea that men might at last be able to share the loss of libido, weight gain, and general grumpiness which so often accompany pill taking for women we are in danger of losing track of the bigger issue: control of conception. The pill gives women control of the fertility tap. She decides when to turn it off but just as important she decides (after discussion we hope) when to turn it back on.

It is easy to forget in the heat of debate that we don't just want to stop babies. We want to have them too. That wanting is not logical, it is not therefore easily planned. For me (and I suspect most women of my acquaintance) wanting a baby is about holding a warm sweet weight in your arms, about the feeling that seems to run through your bones and end up twitching the corner of your mouth into a smile. It is something akin to, but quite different from, desire. I don't pretend to know how men feel about babies (I am sure you will tell me though). My sense is that most regard pregnancy first with shock (have I really done that?) then panic (can I pay for it?) and then wonder. It is the wonder that gradually turns to love.

At the moment it is the woman who retains control over the moment at which that melting in the bones feeling is allowed to over-take the firm "no this would ruin my life" feeling in the head. Of course we all know stories of women who have put off having babies because their partner doesn't want them. (Too often they end up alone when their partner leaves and shacks up with some women who immediately gets pregnant.) But it is, I would suggest, quite rare for a woman who has a fertile partner and wants to have a baby, not to find someway of convincing him that it would be a good idea. Sometimes it is not so much convincing him as presenting him with a fait accompli - just letting nature take its course.

What will happen when it is the man who controls the tap?

Ah.   Male as the free sperm "tap" that can be turned on or off by the woman.  Heaven forbid a man should have control over his own body.  That a woman might (gasp) have to find some way of *convincing* him.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #83 on: March 28, 2017, 02:47:07 PM »
Never big on consistency, the third wavers at the same time create a burst of misandry and lies about the failure of a recent male birth control study.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/women-arent-laughing-at-that-male-birth-control-story_us_5818f13fe4b0922c570bd335

Quote
Women around the world were thrown in to fits of side-splitting laughter earlier this week after media reported that a clinical trial for an “extremely effective” form of male contraceptive was closed after men in the study didn’t like the side effects, which included depression, acne outbreaks, mood swings, changes in libido and weight gain. The news was published by researchers at the University of Edinburgh in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. They found that the injection has a 96 percent rate of success, only slightly lower than birth control pills do for women.

What these misandric hatemongers left out is that the mood swings were so severe that there was a suicide in this small study.  And Huffington lies when it pretends that it was the men in the study that shut it down or refused to participate.  After the suicide, it was the researchers that determined that it wasn't safe.

Quote
No one is mocking the dangerous side effects of hormonal birth control, least of all women, who have been subjected to them for decades.

But women haven't been subject to the severity of symptoms that were observed in these tests.  1 in 25 women on the birth control pill don't run off and commit suicide. 

Note that both the women's march and the Day without a woman featured speakers who had murdered men.  Now a group of researchers shut down a male birth control pill because it actually KILLS one of the participants, and what we get from the third wave feminists is this:

The male birth control pill is bad because it gives men control over their own bodies, but on the bright side, it gives men crippling and sometimes lethal side effects.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #84 on: March 28, 2017, 02:47:18 PM »
The LDS Church has, at least in the past, been a strong proponent of the "Nuclear Family" model.

They're also an obvious one to point at in terms of perpetuating traditional gender roles. Of course in terms of "official materials" at this point, they're going to be a bit more difficult to pin down in a direct manner. Which is what I'd presume to be the case for any religious group with anywhere near 1 million members or more.

Too lazy to go search, but I'm sure finding references to "nurturing" and motherhood in particular should be fairly easy. Ie the "Mother's role" is to be the primary care giver for young children, while the guidance and references for men when it comes to young children in particular are going to be fairly sparse and more geared towards the disciplinary side.

Please avoid making such rank generalizations when you are "too lazy to search."    Male role is "geared towards the disciplinary?"  That's a hateful falsehood.

The most famous quote about fatherhood in the LDS church is David O McKan: "no success can compensate for failure in the home."

LDS chapels are more likely than any other building that I've seen or heard of to have changing tables in the men's rooms as well as the women's rooms.

You have to remember here Pete: I grew up in "Mormon Central" as a Mormon. So I'm going from personal experience. It may very well have been (incorrect) "Gospel according to local practices" but it was very much in play. And while "disciplinarian" may have been a poor word choice, the male as the "priesthood authority of the household" and emphasis on men as the primary bread winner while the wife remained at home were still very strong elements of teachings in the LDS Church as of the late 1980's early 1990's where I was.

Obviously, that has since changed in various ways since then("difficult to pin down"), as they've now placed the emphasis elsewhere(although men still remain "the priesthood authority of the home"). Which I believe reflects the comments I already made on  the matter. 

Quote
As for the "Nuclear family," that term doesn't mean what Drake thinks it means.  Yes, Mormons promote the roles of husband and wife, but the Nuclear Family downgrades the role of extended family and community, which mormons decidedly do NOT do.  Mormons are proponents of the pre-1950s extended family, and so what Drake said there is misleading as well.

I was given to understand the parlance of "The nuclear family" entailed Mom remained at home, took care of the children and basic household upkeep/needs, primarily in the form of cooking and cleaning/laundry duties. While Dad went to work and provided the income needed to support everyone in the household, and addressed anything the wife couldn't take care of on her own once he made it home.

This is a well established media icon that's existed since the propaganda reels of the 1950's. Now obviously, revisionists may try to deviate from that template. But outside of those exceptions, most people are referencing the "Stay at home mom, picket fence, two car garage" ideal set forth in the 1950's when talking of "The nuclear family."

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #85 on: March 28, 2017, 02:53:45 PM »
I saw baby changing tables in LDS church men's bathrooms in the 1980s and 1990s in Utah.

Yes, the LDS church does emphasize priesthood authority, but for you to suggest that has to do with "discipline" more than anything else is wrong and hateful.  "Wait until your father comes home" is not a meme more found in LDS households than in, say, protestant or Catholic 2-family households.  Yes, I know your background so I know you know better than that.  The male's token authority to assign the mealtime prayer has nothing to do with "discipline."

The LDS.org site is searchable for talks that were given back when you were growing up.  I believe I'm older than you, and I'll be very surprised if you can show me any GC talk suggesting that fathers' primary role is disciplining.


Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Day without a woman - wut?
« Reply #86 on: March 28, 2017, 03:29:36 PM »
"primary bread winner"

Now THAT generalization is true, and I'd even agree with you that the church emphasis there is often oppressive, although like you said it's getting less emphatic and disproportioned.