PS. What are men to do in the face of this feminist resurgence? Lie back in the bedroom and be mere sperm donors?
Huh? Are you equating feminism with lesbianism? Or are you suggesting that feminists want women to do everything - work, look after the home, look after the children and for the man to do bugger all? That doesn't even make sense.
I wouldn't call myself feminist, and that there are men out there who want to "look after me" can be quite sweet. But there is a line, and that line comes when they think that I'll be the one to stay home and look after the children simply because they deem it to be traditional.
Also, Tony, most if not all posters here are talking about gender equality in the 'Western' context, not in a global one.
And, Dreaming, while I can't trade statistics with you, I still bet that there are many, many more women in the world doing the nurturing than are the men - whether or not that's right or wrong in your book ...
And I still say that this - whilst it is very probably true - is completely irrelevant to the discussion. And throughout the (at least) three times you've bought it up as a reply, you still haven't explained why it is relevant in the slightest...
Good on you for having a view and being willing to debate it, though; it's very refreshing for me because, whilst I don't live in any particular bubble, your view is one that is becoming far more extinct and I think it's important to remember that there are people with those sorts of views.
To me it sounds like Tony thinks the decline of "traditional" gender roles should be resisted.
Tony, I wish you'd see the problem with your idea that women are more naturally suited to the role of nurturer. Aside from the implication that women are therefore less naturally suited than men to the role of breadwinner, it also implies that a man can't care for children or maintain a home anywhere near as well as a woman could. I'm sure a lot of single fathers would object to that.
I'm horribly outnumbered. But I've never said that either gender absolutely has to fulfill a particular role - only that overall men are better at being providers, and that women are the better nurturers. And that is the way that nature intended!
I'm horribly outnumbered. But I've never said that either gender absolutely has to fulfill a particular role - only that overall men are better at being providers, and that women are the better nurturers. And that is the way that nature intended!
Tony.
Can you substantiate that with anything? Lionesses are the ones who go out and do all the hunting and the providing, as well as most of the nurturing. Emperor penguins, the male stands and looks after the egg whilst the female travels back to get the food. I'm sure there are lots of examples in nature where the female is actually the provider and the male is the primary carer.
And considering the most families now are not the perfect nuclear (ie, through divorce or single parenthood), one gender has to do both.
Yes, the One Who - it's substantiated by the simple fact that throughout the world the vast majority of nurturing is done by women. I didn't impose it on them, they chose (if they actually had a choice). Of course I can't quote figures - a head count would be difficult!
Here in the West we're lucky to have options that aren't available to many elsewhere, and people can decide their priorities for themselves. However, without condemning anyone to any particular role, I remain convinced that, overall, men have a role to provide and that women are, on balance, the best suited to nurturing ...
I remain convinced that, overall, men have a role to provide and that women are, on balance, the best suited to nurturing ...
Tony.
Everyone is entitled their own opinion, that's what keeps life interesting because people have different opinions, different view points, otherwise life would be rather dull.
Last edited by BridgesAndBalloons : 25-12-2012 at 09:45 AM.
An afterthought on lions (raised a little earlier). They are pack animals. Their lifestyle was not invented by me. But one male has a harem of perhaps a dozen or more females. They hunt as a pack since that is most effective way to kill. They need the numbers (of females) to achieve a kill. So the male is almost superfluous (except as a sperm donor!)
Don't forget that there are women [and men] who decide, for whatever reason, not to have children, or a marriage/partnership. In some cases this isn't necessarily a choice, as disabilities effect people in different ways.
People like me, then, who have no partner or children, have to both provide for and nurture ourselves.
There are women, and men, who had deficits in nurturing when growing up, and this can impact on the roles they take on as an adult. I know that, first and foremost, I need to learn to respectfully nurture myself, and a child is a heck of a lot of responsibility, and I wouldn't want to damage one, or myself, which could easily happen given my past. However there are people with similar pasts to mine who go onto a married, family life.
And don't forget also that women need to be nurtured... As men need to be provided for also. It's all about balance in what are universal human qualities.
My most 'nurturing' tutor at uni was a man. Also.
And, I work with women at work who have been provided for, but not fully nurtured, and they can have a hard time nurturing others, and themselves.
In other countries women have to be the nurturer for the simple fact that they have breast and therefore food which men cannot provide, unless they earn enough to buy formula, bottles, sterilising equipment etc.
Mand, South Wales, Full-time working, single mother to 2 scarily independent girls.
I AM A PROUD PLUMERIA SISTER
I agree with Stellata, I think it's important to learn to care for and nurture ourselves, which can be difficult for some people for many reasons.
Personally, I've been challenged on my decision to not have children, some people view it as not "living up" to my gender role as being a female in a heterosexual relationship. Even being accused of not being nurturing enough, being selfish etc, which is ridiculous as I love to care for my loved ones, and I don't think of myself as selfish.
it's substantiated by the simple fact that throughout the world the vast majority of nurturing is done by women. I didn't impose it on them, they chose (if they actually had a choice).
... At the risk of hyperbolising, if I'm reading you correctly, by that logic black people should still be slaves because the vast majority of slaves were black people. ("I'm not saying slaves do anything less valuable; they contribute greatly to society, after all! But I still feel their place is in the house, working for our family.")
I would personally be extremely careful about the assumption that because it is the norm, it is therefore natural.
Tony your point of view does not make you a sexist at all just old fashioned and there is going at all wrong with that.
Dreaming how on earth did you get that it is obvious there was no lgic used in your thought at all. It is true women predominantly have the nurturing role in society.
To whom I may offend,
hahahahaha
Yours faithfully the monkeys arse
how on earth did you get that it is obvious there was no lgic used in your thought at all. It is true women predominantly have the nurturing role in society.
sigh. Tony's reasoning for women staying in the house was that it is natural. The grounding for it being natural is that women on the whole stay in the house.
Aside from the fact that it is circular logic, my point was that normal does not necessarily equal natural, and that it is very dangerousto start using that argument. also, that what is normal now has not always been the norm, and indeed for most of history hasn't been the case.
Am I speaking double Dutch? I fail to see how this is so difficult to grasp.
An afterthought on lions (raised a little earlier). They are pack animals. Their lifestyle was not invented by me. But one male has a harem of perhaps a dozen or more females. They hunt as a pack since that is most effective way to kill. They need the numbers (of females) to achieve a kill. So the male is almost superfluous (except as a sperm donor!)
But are we really moving towards that as humans?
Tony.
I've held off on replying, because I've mainly been lurking and reading.
But throughout you've hinted at that equality between men and women means men become nothing more than sperm donors. And there are pages and pages of replies contesting this, equality is EQUAL - clues in the word.
This lion reference is useless to this debate. Feminism is about splitting everything 50/50, not making men merely a sperm donor.
I'm curious, how have you deduced that humans are moving towards this? Because women want to have equal everything? Because lesbians use sperm donors? Gay couples also use women's eggs/womb, should women lie back and merely become baby ovens?
Because women want to work as well as raise a family (if they want to)
Many in the world live below the poverty line, and have done for a long time, does that mean it should stay that way, because its been like that for generations?
We’ve got obsessions
I want to erase every nasty thought that bugs me every day of every week
We’ve got obsessions
You never tell me what it is that makes you strong and what it is that makes you weak.
And it is more then natural for women to stay at home looking after children and the home. That is not to say it is the way it has to be.
Boats are you suggesting men give birth?
To whom I may offend,
hahahahaha
Yours faithfully the monkeys arse
