Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your question is nonsense. Women never rolled a courtship ball in thier favor. I'm not blaming them for the ways it is. I'm admonishing them (and men too) who do not even give credence to the idea that perhaps it's time to change it.
But I would say to answer your question, That the system previously attempted to be "equal". The man did not do these things for nothing. The women cooked, cleaned, had babies and raised them etc.
I do not agree with this conception either mind you, but at least they tried to be equal. So basically we have let go of all expectations for women under the banner of feminism, yet refuse to let them go for men. that is the point.
I think you are conflating several things. Women are still expected take most of the responsibility for the household and child-rearing even though the bulk of women do work as well. What you are seeing is not a sea change in the 'ground' rules of the way men and women interact, but women engaging as much power outside of the home as in it. Unfortunately it's translated to bigger responsibilities for working women, but with that power does come extra work.
Basically men and women have just shifted what they are exchanging. But they are still engaging in the exchange.
I think you are conflating several things. Women are still expected take most of the responsibility for the household and child-rearing even though the bulk of women do work as well. What you are seeing is not a sea change in the 'ground' rules of the way men and women interact, but women engaging as much power outside of the home as in it. Unfortunately it's translated to bigger responsibilities for working women, but with that power does come extra work.
Basically men and women have just shifted what they are exchanging. But they are still engaging in the exchange.
I contend that this is a sea change. I don't know of many bigger shifts.
I contend that this is a sea change. I don't know of many bigger shifts.
The fundamentals remain the same...even as women move into the workforce, even into the advent of feminism, men as the aggressors and women as the selectors...suggesting it's a more inimitable force than social change.
The fundamentals remain the same...even as women move into the workforce, even into the advent of feminism, men as the aggressors and women as the selectors...suggesting it's a more inimitable force than social change.
Of course, the misogynist has only has this revelation. The fact is (and this is an entirely tangential matter), that while the bulk of women now work outside of the home, polls show they still do the majority of the household chores and child rearing. So the woman has put more work on herself to wield more social and political clout. You're like that knuckle dragging sort of neanderthal who thinks women took jobs outside so they can shirk their duties in the home. Now who's "old-fashioned?"
How does it work in my favor? If a man does not fit that role, he's not going to find me attractive just as surely as I wouldn't find him attractive.
It works in your favor because you described yourself as the selector, which ultimately puts you in control. The men can pursue you while you sit back and pick through the ones who approach. That's a pretty good set up. It reminds of when the job market was good and I had employers calling me left and right. I didn't have to go out and look for jobs. Employers came to me and all I had to do was decide which ones I liked. As for a man who doesn't fit the aggressor role, I can understand why you might not find him attractive. But how does that make you less attractive to him? Whether he's an aggressor or not doesn't change who you are. So why would it make you less attractive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxbabeechick
An appeal to nature seeks to explain a behavior, not justify it. When we're talking about matters of rights being violated, as in slavery or killing that's where intellect would predominate. What does intellect have to do in what's viscerally attractive about either sex? That's where nature comes in.
Intellect doesn't have an on-off button that switches on when we're talking about killing someone and then turns off when we're evaluating how attractive someone of the opposite gender is. The problem here is that you're so sure it's behavior based in nature. What I maintain is that so much of what we believe to be natural is really a product of cultural influence. But we've heard it for so long that's become ingrained to the point where we can't even recognize just how much of it is really culturally based.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxbabeechick
Of course they realize it in such an exaggerated example of extremes (because even in situations like that, there are usually a host of other complexities), what they don't seem to realize that even though the mutualism of a male-female relationship may not be as blatant, it still exists. It's a case of pure simple-mindeness.
Then why did you say the following?
These are the kind of men who would look at a young, beautiful girl with an old wealthy man and say the cards are unbalanced in her favor because she gets to be pursued and supported, seemingly blind to the obvious fact this man is seeking this sort of arrangement because he wants to boost his ego and standing by having a young beautiful girl at his side he expects to mostly submit.
Who are these men that are blind to the obvious? I've never met such a man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxbabeechick
Women are still expected take most of the responsibility for the household and child-rearing even though the bulk of women do work as well.
Expected by whom? You're the one who keeps saying women are the selectors. If that's true, then women can select for men who DON'T expect women to take on most of the household and child-rearing duties. If a woman has a full-time career, but still chooses to be with a man who expects her to do more at home than he does, who's fault is that? Sounds like a poor selection.
The fact is (and this is an entirely tangential matter), that while the bulk of women now work outside of the home, polls show they still do the majority of the household chores and child rearing. So the woman has put more work on herself to wield more social and political clout. You're like that knuckle dragging sort of neanderthal who thinks women took jobs outside so they can shirk their duties in the home. Now who's "old-fashioned?"
What these women let their partners get away with is entirely their fault. If they marry a guy who expects them to do more than their fair share of work at home despite having a full-time career, then it means the woman has made a poor selection. I don't believe women who work outside the home do so to avoid responsibilities at home. In fact, I applaud any woman for daring to pursue the same opportunities that were previously only available to men. Likewise, I applaud the women who demand their husbands do their fair share at home and don't hide behind the "that's women's work" excuse. But the way you've been talking about aggressor/selector means women have greater power. I can be the aggressor and go after every woman I see. But if they all reject me, then it means I'm not really the one who wields any power. They are.
It works in your favor because you described yourself as the selector, which ultimately puts you in control. The men can pursue you while you sit back and pick through the ones who approach. That's a pretty good set up. It reminds of when the job market was good and I had employers calling me left and right. I didn't have to go out and look for jobs. Employers came to me and all I had to do was decide which ones I liked. As for a man who doesn't fit the aggressor role, I can understand why you might not find him attractive. But how does that make you less attractive to him? Whether he's an aggressor or not doesn't change who you are. So why would it make you less attractive?
I am the selector out of the pool of men who chose to approach me. So I do not have the entirety of the control. I may very well have my pick out of a horrible litter just because I'm not the one doing the initial selecting. So I said 'selector' as a general statement but it's obvious what I meant without clarifying. I can't choose the millionaire if the millionaire didn't first choose me. In fact, you can say the man has the control since he first selects who he will attempt to initiate a relationship with, and then he has the pick of whoever wants him. The point being if it were a lose-win situation for males or females the behavior would shift. That's blatantly obvious.
I would be less attractive to that man because some men want in a women who is the aggressor and they aren't the aggressor purely because they'd rather meet a woman who fulfills that role. My brother-in-law is a perfect example. He's horrified by the dynamics of the relationships I have. He would never date someone like me in a million years, but he married my twin, a girl that's pretty much JUST like me other than the fact she is very aggressive and initiated their relationship. She even asked him to marry her!
So you see why a relationship wouldn't progress between someone like that me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyCrane
Intellect doesn't have an on-off button that switches on when we're talking about killing someone and then turns off when we're evaluating how attractive someone of the opposite gender is. The problem here is that you're so sure it's behavior based in nature. What I maintain is that so much of what we believe to be natural is really a product of cultural influence. But we've heard it for so long that's become ingrained to the point where we can't even recognize just how much of it is really culturally based.
There are many things intellect never enters into, as it is neither relevant to ethics or morals. Have you ever tried to evaluate the "rightness" or "wrongness" of being attracted to blonde hair or loud vs. soft-spoken women? I really don't think so. And if you're going to ignore gender differences, who exactly has been driving the "culture' of how men and women interact since the beginning of time? Men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyCrane
Then why did you say the following?
Who are these men that are blind to the obvious? I've never met such a man.
There are men who are least partially blind to it. If such a situation arises, you will hear more derision aimed at the woman for being a "gold-digger" and much less, if any directed at the man who is exploiting her youth and beauty for status and standing. There may even be pity directed his way, as if he's gaining nothing, even though it's clearly a symbiotic relationship. The point I'm making is that even men who can acknowledge this are in gneral too thick to see that all relationships are part of a continuum of symbiosis, and that if they need an extreme example to demonstrate this they are really dense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyCrane
Expected by whom? You're the one who keeps saying women are the selectors. If that's true, then women can select for men who DON'T expect women to take on most of the household and child-rearing duties. If a woman has a full-time career, but still chooses to be with a man who expects her to do more at home than he does, who's fault is that? Sounds like a poor selection.
See above and cease oversimplifying. There are reasons why women are generally responsible for child-rearing and similar duties that have nothing to do with an explicit exchange of services. If you ask a woman who works full-time (like my sister does), you'd likely hear a range of responses from, "I don't like the way he does it" or "If I left it up to him he'd never get it done." This seems like the man is deficient, but remember, people engage in relationships that are ultimately psychologically gratifying and disengage themselves from ones that aren't. She concedes one thing to get another. And many women have housework as an expectation of themselves.
Last edited by xxbabeechick; 10-19-2010 at 04:19 PM..
There's a distinction in men who don't initiate that I'd like to make.
Those who actually prefer women to be the aggressors (the vast majority of them IMO).
And those who are reactively passive, who are frustrated with the process of intiating as it tests their sense of security. They don't actually truly prefer female aggression, they just are frustrated because they fear rejection.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now who's "old-fashioned?"
