Author Topic: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?  (Read 21509 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12699
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
If we did not live in a patriarchy, we'd see an equal number of women as men in leadership positions.  In business - CEOs (and all C-Level positions) are dominated by men.  Politics?  Same thing, dominated by men.  How about wealth?  Again, the list of wealthiest people is dominated by men.

Is that necessarily true?  Are there an equal number of women with the raw, naked ambition and drive it takes to become a c-suite executive as there are men?  Case study of 1, sure, but in our house where my wife and I have similar education levels and fields of study and professional experience, she tells me all the time she doesn't WANT to go any higher than she is.  Not worth the stress and the time to her.  I have a feeling many (not all, certainly, but many) women agree.


Again . . . from the posted Wikipedia article:
Quote
Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a patriarchal ideology that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women. Sociologists tend to see patriarchy as a social product and not as an outcome of innate differences between the sexes and they focus attention on the way that gender roles in a society affect power differentials between men and women.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
If we did not live in a patriarchy, we'd see an equal number of women as men in leadership positions.  In business - CEOs (and all C-Level positions) are dominated by men.  Politics?  Same thing, dominated by men.  How about wealth?  Again, the list of wealthiest people is dominated by men.

Is that necessarily true?  Are there an equal number of women with the raw, naked ambition and drive it takes to become a c-suite executive as there are men?  Case study of 1, sure, but in our house where my wife and I have similar education levels and fields of study and professional experience, she tells me all the time she doesn't WANT to go any higher than she is.  Not worth the stress and the time to her.  I have a feeling many (not all, certainly, but many) women agree.


Again . . . from the posted Wikipedia article:
Quote
Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a patriarchal ideology that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women. Sociologists tend to see patriarchy as a social product and not as an outcome of innate differences between the sexes and they focus attention on the way that gender roles in a society affect power differentials between men and women.

That's nice.  Does it make it so?

In prehistoric times, women stayed home with the kids and men went off to hunt for food.  Was that "the patriarchy"? 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12699
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
If we did not live in a patriarchy, we'd see an equal number of women as men in leadership positions.  In business - CEOs (and all C-Level positions) are dominated by men.  Politics?  Same thing, dominated by men.  How about wealth?  Again, the list of wealthiest people is dominated by men.

Is that necessarily true?  Are there an equal number of women with the raw, naked ambition and drive it takes to become a c-suite executive as there are men?  Case study of 1, sure, but in our house where my wife and I have similar education levels and fields of study and professional experience, she tells me all the time she doesn't WANT to go any higher than she is.  Not worth the stress and the time to her.  I have a feeling many (not all, certainly, but many) women agree.


Again . . . from the posted Wikipedia article:
Quote
Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a patriarchal ideology that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women. Sociologists tend to see patriarchy as a social product and not as an outcome of innate differences between the sexes and they focus attention on the way that gender roles in a society affect power differentials between men and women.

That's nice.  Does it make it so?

In prehistoric times, women stayed home with the kids and men went off to hunt for food.  Was that "the patriarchy"?

Not being an expert in or student of the development, structure, and functioning of human society myself, I tend to defer to the opinions of those who are.  But then again, I'm not trying to push a personal agenda regarding the (non)existence of patriarchal societies in this thread.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
I'm not necessarily trying to "push an agenda" either.  But I've worked in huge companies for 15+ years now, and have seen the ratio of men to women who are willing to work themselves to death to fight to the top.  It's not 100:0, but it sure ain't 50:50, either.

I also know the types of people that sociology as a career attracts (my sister majored in it in undergrad, and having attended a liberal arts school, I took several sociology classes as well), and that there is societal pressure right now to pretend men and women are identical in all respects, and so I approach the conclusions with a healthy amount of skepticism.

When presented with the line "sociologists tend to see" that doesn't prove anything, it just tells me how they frame the issue. 

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2501
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Chris22, you're confusing what is with what should be. The existence of a gendered difference in behavior doesn't, of itself, justify that difference.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12699
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I'm not necessarily trying to "push an agenda" either.  But I've worked in huge companies for 15+ years now, and have seen the ratio of men to women who are willing to work themselves to death to fight to the top.  It's not 100:0, but it sure ain't 50:50, either.

I don't dispute that this is the case.  They question is "Where does this difference come from?".  Most of the research I've seen indicates that it's societal, not biological.  Women are conditioned from a very early age to be caregivers and to act less aggressively.  You yourself have indicated that you would treat a female child quite differently than a male child.

In it's simplest form, that is how a patriarchy tends to show itself.


I also know the types of people that sociology as a career attracts (my sister majored in it in undergrad, and having attended a liberal arts school, I took several sociology classes as well), and that there is societal pressure right now to pretend men and women are identical in all respects, and so I approach the conclusions with a healthy amount of skepticism.

When presented with the line "sociologists tend to see" that doesn't prove anything, it just tells me how they frame the issue.

I don't believe that men and women are identical in all respects (in fact, I've made it very clear that there are quite distinct and easy to measure physical differences earlier on in this thread).  That's an idiotic position to take, and one that is easily disproved.

A sociologist is an expert in or student of the development, structure, and functioning of human society.  Their views are based upon their research (unless you're of the belief that a massive pro-patriarchy conspiracy exists . . . in which case I can provide you with some fine tinfoil hat folding techniques).  It's fine to be skeptical, but to be skeptical based upon intuition rather than contrary data isn't skepticism.  It's just unsupported contrarianism, and tends to be used by people who decide upon a position and then start looking at the facts.


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3748
I'm not necessarily trying to "push an agenda" either.  But I've worked in huge companies for 15+ years now, and have seen the ratio of men to women who are willing to work themselves to death to fight to the top.  It's not 100:0, but it sure ain't 50:50, either.

I don't dispute that this is the case.  They question is "Where does this difference come from?".  Most of the research I've seen indicates that it's societal, not biological.  Women are conditioned from a very early age to be caregivers and to act less aggressively.  You yourself have indicated that you would treat a female child quite differently than a male child.

In it's simplest form, that is how a patriarchy tends to show itself.


I also know the types of people that sociology as a career attracts (my sister majored in it in undergrad, and having attended a liberal arts school, I took several sociology classes as well), and that there is societal pressure right now to pretend men and women are identical in all respects, and so I approach the conclusions with a healthy amount of skepticism.

When presented with the line "sociologists tend to see" that doesn't prove anything, it just tells me how they frame the issue.

I don't believe that men and women are identical in all respects (in fact, I've made it very clear that there are quite distinct and easy to measure physical differences earlier on in this thread).  That's an idiotic position to take, and one that is easily disproved.

A sociologist is an expert in or student of the development, structure, and functioning of human society.  Their views are based upon their research (unless you're of the belief that a massive pro-patriarchy conspiracy exists . . . in which case I can provide you with some fine tinfoil hat folding techniques).  It's fine to be skeptical, but to be skeptical based upon intuition rather than contrary data isn't skepticism.  It's just unsupported contrarianism, and tends to be used by people who decide upon a position and then start looking at the facts.

I know I'll probably regret getting involved in this discussion, but:

@Chris22 :

I find that most of the time, people who argue against the patriarchy do so on the basis of assuming that there are "differences" between men and women. And arguing that those "differences" are what explain the disparities between men and women in certain careers, or certain income levels, etc.

But:

Until recently, women in America were considered as not being separate entities from their husbands. They were considered dependents, like children, or slaves. They could not own property in their own name or control their own earnings, except under very specific circumstances. When a husband died, his wife could not be the guardian to their under-age children.

Until as recently as the 1970s, women could not open a bank account without the consent of a husband or a father.

Women were not allowed to vote until 1920 in the US. 1945 for France, and even later in some places (and of course, there are countries in the world where women are still not allowed to vote at all).

It was only in 1981 that a husband no longer had the right to unilaterally take out a second mortgage on property held jointly with his wife. And only even more recently have laws been put in place saying both a husband and a wife's signature are necessary on a variety of legal documents on aspects of marital life affecting both of them.

Even well into the mid-twentieth century, who became teachers were not allowed to marry or date. If they were discovered doing so, they lost their jobs. Not so with men.

How does one explain all these laws restricting women's movements? And how does one explain how hard women had to fight to get them overturned?

patchyfacialhair

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1152
  • Age: 29
If we did not live in a patriarchy, we'd see an equal number of women as men in leadership positions. 

I'm going to regret posting to this thread, but I think this assertion has the potential to be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox

Sure, it's a Wikipedia link, but the supporting sources were pretty intriguing.

I'm all about equality of opportunity. I have a daughter, I want her not to be held back by any social pressure to do one thing over another. I will support and do my best to help her become a well rounded kid. And I think America is built for that. Heck, she can join the Boy Scouts now if she wanted to. I think for the most part, I'd say the same if she were a boy.

We shouldn't look for equality of outcome as a success measure when we're looking at whether the equality of opportunity was there or not in the first place. It's my personal opinion that here in 2019, equality of opportunity is certainly there no matter your gender. I'd say the bigger problem (changing subject, sorry) is the fact that POOR people truly have it rough, and giving them a fair shake from the beginning would be more of a priority to me than trying to make sure there are equal number of women at the top.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2501
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
It's my personal opinion that here in 2019, equality of opportunity is certainly there no matter your gender.

You are of course welcome to your opinion. I'll just point out that that opinion discounts social pressures.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12699
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
It's my personal opinion that here in 2019, equality of opportunity is certainly there no matter your gender.

This is the crux of the disagreement (it's also a primary source of disagreement in many conversations about structural racism).

Removing some legally enforced barriers that prevent equal opportunity is not remotely sufficient.  There are so many ingrained but less obvious barriers that our society still has.

Women are socially conditioned to be less aggressive from birth.  A man who argues a position loudly is assertive, a woman who does so is a bitch, or too 'emotional'.  Then people talk about how women in the work place tend not to earn as much because they're not as tenacious and aggressive.

Women are socially conditioned to do housework, look after kids, and do social planning around the home (parties, weddings, events).  They're told (both directly and indirectly) for their whole lives that they are are more responsible for these tasks than men.  Women tend to take on significantly more of the housework than men and are overwhelmingly the ones responsible for giving care to infants.  Is it surprising then, that so many of them give up part of their working careers

Equality of opportunity is inextricably entwined with how society views and treats women.  You can't just say "Hey, they're legally treated the same way . . . therefore they're equal."

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
I know I'll probably regret getting involved in this discussion, but:

@Chris22 :

I find that most of the time, people who argue against the patriarchy do so on the basis of assuming that there are "differences" between men and women. And arguing that those "differences" are what explain the disparities between men and women in certain careers, or certain income levels, etc.

But I'm not arguing "against the patriarchy".  I readily admit that things are not equal for women, and they haven't ever been.  Like Patchy below, I have daughters and a working wife and I want the best for them and I want every opportunity open to them.

What I am saying, also like Patchy, is that as long as we define the optimal outcome as 50/50 for everything, you're going to fail, and you're going to speak way too simplistically on a complex topic.  50% of women aren't going to be infantry soldiers, 50% of women aren't going to be NFL quarterbacks, 50% of women aren't going to be kindergarten teachers.  It's just not the way things work.  Every qualified woman who wants a shot at one of those jobs should absolutely have ever opportunity to apply for one, but to say we failed if it isn't exactly 50/50 is childish. 

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2744
I think there are obviously biological differences between males and females. There most likely different distribution curves between males and females in all sorts of attributes, such as spatial ability, nurturing, linguistic ability, etc. However whatever the trends in difference, you have to understand there is a) a large overlap between males and females on those attributes, and b) those trends don't say anything, don't inform any specific person. I think we all are just looking for equal opportunity. Right now that is measured in equal achievement. It's like MLK saying that someday, we would like everyone not to be judged by the color of their skin. But we aint there yet.  I don't know anyone who is mandating 50/50 male/female representation in every single profession on earth. Or where that is legally, etc being sought. It's a strawman.

All the equality between the sexes is culturally, very recent. At the turn of the century if a man wanted to involuntarily commit his wife, he could do it. One of the reasons for involuntary commission: "book reading". 
 
When I was growing up in the 80's I don't think we even had a name for sexual harrassment. It was simply behavior you put up with. If it was invisible to me, at least not having a name for it, it was certainly going to be invisible to men! Those kind of differences in experiences and access was supported by lack of laws, the religious establishment, and cultural pressure. Patriarchy is just a "fancy term" differences in what a woman, versus a man experiences socially.

Women do have more rights in the US than ever before. And we have seen a huge increase in the number of women becoming doctors, lawyers, scientists (and heck congresswomen) as a result.

There will always be differences in achievement and wealth between males and females, because females are the ones biologically bear the children, nurse, and for whatever reason (biologically, socially) do the largest share in of child care as well as household tasks. The US is horrible regarding their parental leave laws and protections. Only when we have more humane parental leave laws will you see even more equality of opportunity between the sexes, and I believe a happier society as well.

And thank you Steveo for the comment that patriarchy does not exist in Muslim culture. Almost as good as as the one that patriarchy doesn't exists in Evangelical Christian circles. 
"I mean I don't think fundamentalist Muslims think one little bit about the patriarchy. To them it doesn't exist." lolol please see definition of patriarchy
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 02:21:55 PM by partgypsy »

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3961
  • Location: Avalon
If we did not live in a patriarchy, we'd see an equal number of women as men in leadership positions. 

I'm going to regret posting to this thread, but I think this assertion has the potential to be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox

Sure, it's a Wikipedia link, but the supporting sources were pretty intriguing.

I'm all about equality of opportunity. I have a daughter, I want her not to be held back by any social pressure to do one thing over another. I will support and do my best to help her become a well rounded kid. And I think America is built for that. Heck, she can join the Boy Scouts now if she wanted to. I think for the most part, I'd say the same if she were a boy.

We shouldn't look for equality of outcome as a success measure when we're looking at whether the equality of opportunity was there or not in the first place. It's my personal opinion that here in 2019, equality of opportunity is certainly there no matter your gender. I'd say the bigger problem (changing subject, sorry) is the fact that POOR people truly have it rough, and giving them a fair shake from the beginning would be more of a priority to me than trying to make sure there are equal number of women at the top.

In 2019, the cohort of women who would be leaders grew up in the 1960s and 1970s who experienced direct discrimination on the grounds of their sex, as well as all the myriad indirect and difficult to quantify discriminations.  So you can't say, even if you think that in 2019 there is no longer any discrimination (and I'd argue otherwise if I needed to) that in 2019 there should also be equal outcomes in positions which take a lifetime to reach.  There's just no logical line between one and the other.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3961
  • Location: Avalon
I know I'll probably regret getting involved in this discussion, but:

@Chris22 :

I find that most of the time, people who argue against the patriarchy do so on the basis of assuming that there are "differences" between men and women. And arguing that those "differences" are what explain the disparities between men and women in certain careers, or certain income levels, etc.

But I'm not arguing "against the patriarchy".  I readily admit that things are not equal for women, and they haven't ever been.  Like Patchy below, I have daughters and a working wife and I want the best for them and I want every opportunity open to them.

What I am saying, also like Patchy, is that as long as we define the optimal outcome as 50/50 for everything, you're going to fail, and you're going to speak way too simplistically on a complex topic.  50% of women aren't going to be infantry soldiers, 50% of women aren't going to be NFL quarterbacks, 50% of women aren't going to be kindergarten teachers.  It's just not the way things work.  Every qualified woman who wants a shot at one of those jobs should absolutely have ever opportunity to apply for one, but to say we failed if it isn't exactly 50/50 is childish.


Can I ask who has "defined the optimal outcome as 50/50 for everything"?  So I can know whether or not your post is a straw man argument?  Cheers.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
I know I'll probably regret getting involved in this discussion, but:

@Chris22 :

I find that most of the time, people who argue against the patriarchy do so on the basis of assuming that there are "differences" between men and women. And arguing that those "differences" are what explain the disparities between men and women in certain careers, or certain income levels, etc.

But I'm not arguing "against the patriarchy".  I readily admit that things are not equal for women, and they haven't ever been.  Like Patchy below, I have daughters and a working wife and I want the best for them and I want every opportunity open to them.

What I am saying, also like Patchy, is that as long as we define the optimal outcome as 50/50 for everything, you're going to fail, and you're going to speak way too simplistically on a complex topic.  50% of women aren't going to be infantry soldiers, 50% of women aren't going to be NFL quarterbacks, 50% of women aren't going to be kindergarten teachers.  It's just not the way things work.  Every qualified woman who wants a shot at one of those jobs should absolutely have ever opportunity to apply for one, but to say we failed if it isn't exactly 50/50 is childish.


Can I ask who has "defined the optimal outcome as 50/50 for everything"?  So I can know whether or not your post is a straw man argument?  Cheers.

Sure.  This is what I responded to.

If we did not live in a patriarchy, we'd see an equal number of women as men in leadership positions.  In business - CEOs (and all C-Level positions) are dominated by men.  Politics?  Same thing, dominated by men.  How about wealth?  Again, the list of wealthiest people is dominated by men.  IME, patriarchy isn't just about gender roles, it's more about power.  In our society men overwhelmingly have it, and women don't.

Philociraptor

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • Age: 29
  • Location: DFW, TX
  • Eat. Sleep. Invest. Repeat.
Sure.  This is what I responded to.

If we did not live in a patriarchy, we'd see an equal number of women as men in leadership positions.  In business - CEOs (and all C-Level positions) are dominated by men.  Politics?  Same thing, dominated by men.  How about wealth?  Again, the list of wealthiest people is dominated by men.  IME, patriarchy isn't just about gender roles, it's more about power.  In our society men overwhelmingly have it, and women don't.

Yanno "leadership positions" does not equal every profession under the sun, right? @tyort1 even elaborated on what was meant: C-level execs, politicians, business people.

Not all rectangles are squares...

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6265
It's my personal opinion that here in 2019, equality of opportunity is certainly there no matter your gender.

This is the crux of the disagreement (it's also a primary source of disagreement in many conversations about structural racism).

Removing some legally enforced barriers that prevent equal opportunity is not remotely sufficient.  There are so many ingrained but less obvious barriers that our society still has.

Women are socially conditioned to be less aggressive from birth.  A man who argues a position loudly is assertive, a woman who does so is a bitch, or too 'emotional'.  Then people talk about how women in the work place tend not to earn as much because they're not as tenacious and aggressive.

Women are socially conditioned to do housework, look after kids, and do social planning around the home (parties, weddings, events).  They're told (both directly and indirectly) for their whole lives that they are are more responsible for these tasks than men.  Women tend to take on significantly more of the housework than men and are overwhelmingly the ones responsible for giving care to infants.  Is it surprising then, that so many of them give up part of their working careers

Equality of opportunity is inextricably entwined with how society views and treats women.  You can't just say "Hey, they're legally treated the same way . . . therefore they're equal."
This is very well stated.  I think about this a lot these days, and I'm not sure if it gets better or worse as I age.

Just this last month, we got a request from one of our kid's schools to volunteer for an upcoming dance.  I signed up to take cookies (that I am buying from a bakery).  And that's it.  I did not sign up to chaperone, chair it, set up, clean up, or "adopt a table" (provide tablecloth, plates, silverware, glasses, and a centerpiece).  Because there are 120 students, and I assume, close to 200 parents.

Well, as the weeks got on we got desperate requests from the school "we will have to cancel".  So I handed the sign up form to my husband.  He looked at it, and said "well, I can clean up but that's it.  I cannot POSSIBLY leave work early enough on a Friday for setup."

I didn't say anything at first.  But I did this week (because, yes, I signed up for adopting a table.)

WHY THE FUCK NOT??  We have the same fucking kind of job.  I'm leaving early and taking fucking vacation.  YOU CAN DO THE SAME GODDAMNED THING, YOU EARN 1.5X THE VACATION THAT I DO.

But it's very much a societal construct.  Even though *more* of the dads at his work are younger and take advantage of flexible schedules when needed - he has deemed this "not worthy", I suppose.  I mean, it's not like it's a sick kid, right?

It frustrates me, and this is only a tiny little blip. (The kind of crap I've directly heard out of his bosses' mouths, and others at my workplace are much worse.)  So when people talk about patriarchy like it's not a thing, I think "I want to live on that planet!!"

Boofinator

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 677
It's my personal opinion that here in 2019, equality of opportunity is certainly there no matter your gender.

This is the crux of the disagreement (it's also a primary source of disagreement in many conversations about structural racism).

Removing some legally enforced barriers that prevent equal opportunity is not remotely sufficient.  There are so many ingrained but less obvious barriers that our society still has.

Women are socially conditioned to be less aggressive from birth.  A man who argues a position loudly is assertive, a woman who does so is a bitch, or too 'emotional'.  Then people talk about how women in the work place tend not to earn as much because they're not as tenacious and aggressive.

Women are socially conditioned to do housework, look after kids, and do social planning around the home (parties, weddings, events).  They're told (both directly and indirectly) for their whole lives that they are are more responsible for these tasks than men.  Women tend to take on significantly more of the housework than men and are overwhelmingly the ones responsible for giving care to infants.  Is it surprising then, that so many of them give up part of their working careers

Equality of opportunity is inextricably entwined with how society views and treats women.  You can't just say "Hey, they're legally treated the same way . . . therefore they're equal."
This is very well stated.  I think about this a lot these days, and I'm not sure if it gets better or worse as I age.

Just this last month, we got a request from one of our kid's schools to volunteer for an upcoming dance.  I signed up to take cookies (that I am buying from a bakery).  And that's it.  I did not sign up to chaperone, chair it, set up, clean up, or "adopt a table" (provide tablecloth, plates, silverware, glasses, and a centerpiece).  Because there are 120 students, and I assume, close to 200 parents.

Well, as the weeks got on we got desperate requests from the school "we will have to cancel".  So I handed the sign up form to my husband.  He looked at it, and said "well, I can clean up but that's it.  I cannot POSSIBLY leave work early enough on a Friday for setup."

I didn't say anything at first.  But I did this week (because, yes, I signed up for adopting a table.)

WHY THE FUCK NOT??  We have the same fucking kind of job.  I'm leaving early and taking fucking vacation.  YOU CAN DO THE SAME GODDAMNED THING, YOU EARN 1.5X THE VACATION THAT I DO.

But it's very much a societal construct.  Even though *more* of the dads at his work are younger and take advantage of flexible schedules when needed - he has deemed this "not worthy", I suppose.  I mean, it's not like it's a sick kid, right?

It frustrates me, and this is only a tiny little blip. (The kind of crap I've directly heard out of his bosses' mouths, and others at my workplace are much worse.)  So when people talk about patriarchy like it's not a thing, I think "I want to live on that planet!!"

To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance? (My wife similarly wants to attend many of the during-school events, but I don't want to spend my vacation time on them. As for my childhood, I don't recall my parents ever missing work to come to my school except if I was ill or in a boatload of trouble.)

To get back on topic, I do fangirl my daughters, even though I don't miss work for a dance or an ice cream social. Instead I schedule several weeks every year to vacation with them, spend time with them every evening, and am probably their number one fan (for the time being).

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2501
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3748
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

We're socialized to think that we're supposed to care more. And that certain jobs are "ours" in the family. And often at work, for that matter.

And since both men and women are socialized to think this, both men and women tend to think that it's "natural," instead of possibly a social construct.

https://qz.com/work/1286996/an-extremely-clear-definition-of-emotional-labor-from-adam-grants-podcast/


mjr

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 264
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Brisbane, Qld
  • Retired at 52
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

Why does it need to prompt the question ?  It just is. 

Why anyone would consider using paid vacation to help setup for some school dance is the real mystery here.

EricL

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
One thing I don't fan boy about women is women in authority.  In my 27 year military career I witnessed women working at every pay grade from corporal to colonel starting with my first company commander.  I witnessed women who were corrupt, petty, and stupid.  I witnessed other women whose courage, honor, and intellect were such I'd follow them anywhere.  One set did not markedly out number the other; most were somewhere in between; none exhibited unique traits a particularly good or bad male officer didn't have.  There's not a single one I can say that was a better or worse leader specifically because she didn't have a dick. 

I endorse more women in positions of authority for general fairness of opportunity.  I also look forward to some of the pollyanna, rose tinted attitudes about women in authority dying a deservedly hard death when that happens. 

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9954
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
You don't have to fanboy the bad ones, you shouldn't fanboy the bad ones.  The point is that the good ones should get fanboyed.

AMMW

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 3
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

Why does it need to prompt the question ?  It just is. 

Why anyone would consider using paid vacation to help setup for some school dance is the real mystery here.
not to any civilized human

“all the other kids’ mommies were at the dance, why weren’t you there?”
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 08:45:58 PM by AMMW »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1916
You don't have to fanboy the bad ones, you shouldn't fanboy the bad ones.  The point is that the good ones should get fanboyed.

I do this within reason. If a woman is achieving to a high level in any activity that I'm interested I think it's great. I don't ensure that I fanboy women and men equally. I don't make gender an issue. I don't fanboy many people either.

A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2501
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
I don't make gender an issue.

you're not kidding


A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?

duuuuuuude

you. cannot. POSSIBLY. think. this comment is some kind of clever gotcha.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1916
I don't make gender an issue.

you're not kidding


A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?

duuuuuuude

you. cannot. POSSIBLY. think. this comment is some kind of clever gotcha.

Can you answer the question honestly ? I'd like to know your thoughts on this. Why does a man get the MMM role and not a female. Is it the patriarchy or is it just the way the cookie crumbles.

soccerluvof4

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4454
  • Location: Artic Midwest
  • Retired at 50
    • My Journal
Just saw this thread but and skimmed quickly so if my thoughts align the same as someone elses so be it.

Other than work I don't and have never thought like that. I was in the Military and in a lot of cases Women did a better job then a lot of the men. As far as sports go I watch Womens basketball because fundamentally its better than mens because its not just all 3 pointers and slam dunks BUT usually the Top 20 Teams. Same with Womens soccer and I also really enjoy Womens Softball. I also really enjoy watching the Womens National Team and love the Women Olympians in both swimming and Gymnastics particularly. My only hang up with Women and sports is more whole locker room thing but I don't think its the Women fault as much as it is finding away for Women to be involved without men hazing or harassing them. Also having a Daughter (And a College Athlete) I think makes one more sensitive to these things.

I think the Me2 movement was a good thing but now is getting out of hand and having 3 boys the fact that all its takes is an accusation and there life could be ruined trying to defend themselves there is something wrong. We need tougher laws that if a person makes an accusation for no other reason "than just because" they need to be punished for it. And I am sure that could be said for men accusing Women falsely.

Actors or Actresses for me its whoever can carry the role. The only argument I hear and understand is in some cases equal pay does need to mean equal ticket sales or spectators.

In the job world its stupid the your sex should determine your rate of pay especially in a world that has changed so much where you need in a lot if not most cases 2 incomes to have anything. When I was working (owned my own business) I will say though that I did run into plenty of Women that were in leadership roles that were sexist just as much in decision making if not more than men. So it goes both ways as far as I am concerned where that is. But again why shouldn't the pay be the same as long as both people can do the task. Its not going as fast as everyone would like it but I do think things are getting better as I know many many people where the Women now are the bread winners.


RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9954
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada

A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?

LOLOL.  So silly.  It's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read this.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2744

A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?

LOLOL.  So silly.  It's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read this.

Egads, a WHITE guy. All the minorities should leave this forum too, because they might believe in equal opportunity.

Could it be, that a person, whether they are female, black, trans, might recognize that there are systemic barriers and attitudes that make them less likely to start at the same place, and succeed to the same level as someone not in that category YET at the same time want to learn how to do everything they can, individually to succeed. Holding more than one idea in one's head at a time -I know it's weird- but just bear with me. The two ideas do not cancel each other out. They can both be true and exist at the same time. 
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 07:00:47 AM by partgypsy »

soccerluvof4

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4454
  • Location: Artic Midwest
  • Retired at 50
    • My Journal

A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?

LOLOL.  So silly.  It's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read this.

A WHITE guy. All the minorities should leave this forum too, because they might believe in equal opportunity.





Started by a man but supported by his DW who even at the time occasionally wrote articles. Hes divorced now so maybe we should all run as well! -sarcastic-

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12699
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
You don't have to fanboy the bad ones, you shouldn't fanboy the bad ones.  The point is that the good ones should get fanboyed.

I do this within reason. If a woman is achieving to a high level in any activity that I'm interested I think it's great. I don't ensure that I fanboy women and men equally. I don't make gender an issue. I don't fanboy many people either.

A good question is should everyone really be on this forum ? It was started by a man. Admittedly it was just one man but is this forum just another example of the patriarchy ? I don't believe in the patriarchy but can anyone who believes in the patriarchy and equal outcomes really frequent this webpage and/or forum. Should we all up and leave and go to a female run FIRE site ?

Whether or not you like it, we live in a patriarchy.  Avoiding white male dominated stuff would radically limit the things you can do.  You wouldn't be able to go to court, talk with political representatives, buy lumber (or hire a contractor for anything around the house), have your computer fixed, contact fire or police services in an emergency, buy oil, trade on the stock market, bank, etc.

Do you honestly think that this is a reasonable approach to take?  If so, why?

PoutineLover

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
Part of equality is realizing that women are just as flawed as men. All those saying well I had a sexist female boss, or I knew a shitty female manager, yup, that's how it works. The point is, men are shitty bosses regardless of gender, and somehow women are perceived to be bad bosses because of their gender. Same way minorities are used to represent ALL of their race when really it's just one individual. But one white man never represents ALL white men. Case in point: #notallmen

Boofinator

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 677
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

We're socialized to think that we're supposed to care more. And that certain jobs are "ours" in the family. And often at work, for that matter.

And since both men and women are socialized to think this, both men and women tend to think that it's "natural," instead of possibly a social construct.

https://qz.com/work/1286996/an-extremely-clear-definition-of-emotional-labor-from-adam-grants-podcast/

Thanks for the link, it was very informative.

I agree that women on average probably perform a larger share of emotional labor than men (certainly in my relationship), and I don't necessarily disagree with your premise that the emotional distribution of labor is socialized along gender lines (though I don't have enough knowledge of the topic to agree either). Regardless, isn't one of the defining ideas of MMM to call bullshit on false social constructs (like non-emotional labor for the sake of it)? Would society (or relationships) crumble if women cut back on emotional labor until they reach the same level as men (as Mustachians believe society will go on just fine without everyone working fulltime until 67 years of age)?

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2744
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

We're socialized to think that we're supposed to care more. And that certain jobs are "ours" in the family. And often at work, for that matter.

And since both men and women are socialized to think this, both men and women tend to think that it's "natural," instead of possibly a social construct.

https://qz.com/work/1286996/an-extremely-clear-definition-of-emotional-labor-from-adam-grants-podcast/

Thanks for the link, it was very informative.

I agree that women on average probably perform a larger share of emotional labor than men (certainly in my relationship), and I don't necessarily disagree with your premise that the emotional distribution of labor is socialized along gender lines (though I don't have enough knowledge of the topic to agree either). Regardless, isn't one of the defining ideas of MMM to call bullshit on false social constructs (like non-emotional labor for the sake of it)? Would society (or relationships) crumble if women cut back on emotional labor until they reach the same level as men (as Mustachians believe society will go on just fine without everyone working fulltime until 67 years of age)?

It would be interesting. Happened in Iceland, for 1 day. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34602822

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 849
It blows my mind how many of my fellow Straight Middle-Aged White Guys (SMAWGs, so close to the Hobbit dragon!) don't see their own privilege. I think they are just afraid of being replaced, or "losing" to women and PoC. It's like SMAWGs have been the collective king of the hill for so long, and they're scared and furious that the end could come NOW, during their lifetime. I mean, after all, what are the odds of that? It's not fair!!

And I guess it's human nature to desperately guard what you think is yours.

I know what it's like to lose. To feel so desperately that you're right, yet to fail nonetheless. It’s frightening. Turns the legs to jelly. I ask you, to what end? Dread it. Run from it. Destiny arrives all the same. And now, it's here. Or should I say, women and PoC are.

Boofinator

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 677
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

We're socialized to think that we're supposed to care more. And that certain jobs are "ours" in the family. And often at work, for that matter.

And since both men and women are socialized to think this, both men and women tend to think that it's "natural," instead of possibly a social construct.

https://qz.com/work/1286996/an-extremely-clear-definition-of-emotional-labor-from-adam-grants-podcast/

Thanks for the link, it was very informative.

I agree that women on average probably perform a larger share of emotional labor than men (certainly in my relationship), and I don't necessarily disagree with your premise that the emotional distribution of labor is socialized along gender lines (though I don't have enough knowledge of the topic to agree either). Regardless, isn't one of the defining ideas of MMM to call bullshit on false social constructs (like non-emotional labor for the sake of it)? Would society (or relationships) crumble if women cut back on emotional labor until they reach the same level as men (as Mustachians believe society will go on just fine without everyone working fulltime until 67 years of age)?

It would be interesting. Happened in Iceland, for 1 day. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34602822

Reading about Iceland, it seems that women cut out all labor for a day (not just emotional). I have no pretensions that women do not contribute at least 50% of societal work, and losing that work would be crippling (even if for a day). My question was more along the lines of the emotional labor, and whether or not societies or relationships would suffer if women chose to stop working, Mustachian-style.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
I will 100% agree that women perform vastly more "emotional labor" than men.  Full stop.

That said, I would want to further explore what percentage of "emotional labor" is created or influenced by men, versus women.

For instance:

My wife yesterday remember to get a birthday card for my brother in law (my sister's husband).  She would rightly point out that is her doing "my" emotional labor for "my" family (ignoring that we are one big family by marriage, blah blah). 

That is a fair point.

My counterpoint would be that neither I nor my brother in law give a shit if he gets a birthday card or not.  The only ones who MIGHT give a shit (but probably not) are my sister or maybe my mom if for some reason they thought we were forgetting about each other as siblings, but even then, I don't think they'd care. 

I would wager a huge percentage of emotional labor is imposed on women by women.  Men are too dumb, insensitive, self-focused, whatever, to care about a lot of it.  Is that "patriarchy"?  I don't know.  If it is, how do women propose men try and fix it?  Every time my wife complains about something like that and I say "well just don't do it then" I get the angry look.  So I don't know what to tell you.

From one cave man's perspective on that school dance, there are three possible answers:

1.  People who are stay at home parents (granted, usually women) can volunteer; people who work can donate money or things to support
2.  They can schedule the dance at night, when more parents can volunteer (I happily volunteer to help out with stuff not during work hours)
3.  If 1 and 2 can't happen, no dance.  Sorry, a kid's dance doesn't trump my need to be at work earning a living. 

If 1 through 3 are not palatable, one must ask one's self if the pressure to miss work to do this stuff is really "society" and "the patriarchy" or is it one's own sense of guilt/responsibility, and while valid, not really something you can project onto someone else?

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2744
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

We're socialized to think that we're supposed to care more. And that certain jobs are "ours" in the family. And often at work, for that matter.

And since both men and women are socialized to think this, both men and women tend to think that it's "natural," instead of possibly a social construct.

https://qz.com/work/1286996/an-extremely-clear-definition-of-emotional-labor-from-adam-grants-podcast/

Thanks for the link, it was very informative.

I agree that women on average probably perform a larger share of emotional labor than men (certainly in my relationship), and I don't necessarily disagree with your premise that the emotional distribution of labor is socialized along gender lines (though I don't have enough knowledge of the topic to agree either). Regardless, isn't one of the defining ideas of MMM to call bullshit on false social constructs (like non-emotional labor for the sake of it)? Would society (or relationships) crumble if women cut back on emotional labor until they reach the same level as men (as Mustachians believe society will go on just fine without everyone working fulltime until 67 years of age)?

It would be interesting. Happened in Iceland, for 1 day. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34602822

Reading about Iceland, it seems that women cut out all labor for a day (not just emotional). I have no pretensions that women do not contribute at least 50% of societal work, and losing that work would be crippling (even if for a day). My question was more along the lines of the emotional labor, and whether or not societies or relationships would suffer if women chose to stop working, Mustachian-style.

As a woman, and not as a particularly "typical" woman (in my former relationship I was the breadwinner) I would say that kids and society would suffer, if women stopping doing what is called "emotional" labor. It's not just emotional. It is instrumental as well; making sure nutritional meals are made, the forms from school are filled out and returned, appointments are scheduled, kids are tucked in at night, and yes being present for the kids (whether it is pta meetings that help fund shortfalls for teachers and classrooms, parent teacher meetings, karate or art classes, getting the materials for their science fair poster). Women also do the majority of emotional and instrumental support for often older spouses, as well as parents. That work, while saving the healthcare industry a lot of money, is unrenumerative and uncompensated (the VA is now rolling out compensating spouses for caregiving at home, for some sets of veterans, because it does impact their quality and outcomes as well as avoid expensive hospital visits).
The effects may not be immediate or dramatic. It would be akin to what kids of single working moms experience every day.

In my case, my ex was the stay at home Dad. He was good with some things (meals, transportation). But other things that he personally did not care about got neglected. Some things are optional, I could only take so much time off work, and kids are overscheduled anyways so neither of us volunteered. But other things are kind of non-negotiable.  So while he was in charge of parent teacher meetings, many were missed and not rescheduled. School deadlines were missed. And while we did go together to buy bikes for the kids and he said he was going to teach them to ride bikes, keeping them at grandmas house, in reality, he could not be bothered. So, neither of my kids learned how to ride a bike. 
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 08:45:25 AM by partgypsy »

J Boogie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 850
Is it unreasonable to think of womens' expected activities as analogous to men's expected activities like taking out the trash, getting out of bed at night when a sound is heard, fixing things around the house, cleaning out the gutters, changing the tire when it goes flat, etc?

And is it unreasonable to think of womens' unrequested emotional labor as analogous to mens' unrequested analytical labor when they nerd out and go above and beyond to, for example, engineer a sophisticated hydronic heating system, or dial in on the perfect thermostat settings for cost savings and comfort, or eliminate all air leaks in a house with weather stripping, etc? These things, like the emotional labor many women do, benefit others but aren't always requested and often seem to go unnoticed or in some cases teased as obsessive and/or nerdy behavior.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why women are uniquely unappreciated is why I mention this. I don't deny their emotional work is valuable and often underappreciated, but I can't help but see that men do many unrequested things that are valuable and often underappreciated as well - so I don't see this concept as particularly compelling.

Am I wrong in thinking these unrequested male behaviors are underappreciated by the opposite sex? Or am I wrong in thinking these behaviors are analogous because emotional labor is by its nature meant to benefit others, whereas mens' unrequested labor is only beneficial to others as a byproduct and is really meant to satisfy their own curiosity/obsession?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3748
Is it unreasonable to think of womens' expected activities as analogous to men's expected activities like taking out the trash, getting out of bed at night when a sound is heard, fixing things around the house, cleaning out the gutters, changing the tire when it goes flat, etc?

And is it unreasonable to think of womens' unrequested emotional labor as analogous to mens' unrequested analytical labor when they nerd out and go above and beyond to, for example, engineer a sophisticated hydronic heating system, or dial in on the perfect thermostat settings for cost savings and comfort, or eliminate all air leaks in a house with weather stripping, etc? These things, like the emotional labor many women do, benefit others but aren't always requested and often seem to go unnoticed or in some cases teased as obsessive and/or nerdy behavior.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why women are uniquely unappreciated is why I mention this. I don't deny their emotional work is valuable and often underappreciated, but I can't help but see that men do many unrequested things that are valuable and often underappreciated as well - so I don't see this concept as particularly compelling.

Am I wrong in thinking these unrequested male behaviors are underappreciated by the opposite sex? Or am I wrong in thinking these behaviors are analogous because emotional labor is by its nature meant to benefit others, whereas mens' unrequested labor is only beneficial to others as a byproduct and is really meant to satisfy their own curiosity/obsession?

Yeah, I think there's an inherent sexism in the whole "well, yeah, but emotional labor (already coded as feminine) is kind of not all that important, so... it's reasonable that I as a man don't care about it." Unsurprising, though... Because patriarchy

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2744
Is it unreasonable to think of womens' expected activities as analogous to men's expected activities like taking out the trash, getting out of bed at night when a sound is heard, fixing things around the house, cleaning out the gutters, changing the tire when it goes flat, etc?

And is it unreasonable to think of womens' unrequested emotional labor as analogous to mens' unrequested analytical labor when they nerd out and go above and beyond to, for example, engineer a sophisticated hydronic heating system, or dial in on the perfect thermostat settings for cost savings and comfort, or eliminate all air leaks in a house with weather stripping, etc? These things, like the emotional labor many women do, benefit others but aren't always requested and often seem to go unnoticed or in some cases teased as obsessive and/or nerdy behavior.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why women are uniquely unappreciated is why I mention this. I don't deny their emotional work is valuable and often underappreciated, but I can't help but see that men do many unrequested things that are valuable and often underappreciated as well - so I don't see this concept as particularly compelling.

Am I wrong in thinking these unrequested male behaviors are underappreciated by the opposite sex? Or am I wrong in thinking these behaviors are analogous because emotional labor is by its nature meant to benefit others, whereas mens' unrequested labor is only beneficial to others as a byproduct and is really meant to satisfy their own curiosity/obsession?

It's true there are some things that men traditionally do around the house. However study after study show, in sheer number of hours done, women do far more house and child work than men do per week, even if both sexes are working. So unless you are going to argue setting up the surround sound is more valuable than the work females are doing, there is still inequality. Also the kind of labor that women do often means going out of the workforce for months or years; while the kind of work men do is on their time off but not taking time (weeks, months) out of work. That said, men ARE doing much more housework than say 50 years ago. That is something to celebrate!
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-more-unpaid-work-women-do-than-men-2017-03-07
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 09:03:21 AM by partgypsy »

J Boogie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 850
Is it unreasonable to think of womens' expected activities as analogous to men's expected activities like taking out the trash, getting out of bed at night when a sound is heard, fixing things around the house, cleaning out the gutters, changing the tire when it goes flat, etc?

And is it unreasonable to think of womens' unrequested emotional labor as analogous to mens' unrequested analytical labor when they nerd out and go above and beyond to, for example, engineer a sophisticated hydronic heating system, or dial in on the perfect thermostat settings for cost savings and comfort, or eliminate all air leaks in a house with weather stripping, etc? These things, like the emotional labor many women do, benefit others but aren't always requested and often seem to go unnoticed or in some cases teased as obsessive and/or nerdy behavior.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why women are uniquely unappreciated is why I mention this. I don't deny their emotional work is valuable and often underappreciated, but I can't help but see that men do many unrequested things that are valuable and often underappreciated as well - so I don't see this concept as particularly compelling.

Am I wrong in thinking these unrequested male behaviors are underappreciated by the opposite sex? Or am I wrong in thinking these behaviors are analogous because emotional labor is by its nature meant to benefit others, whereas mens' unrequested labor is only beneficial to others as a byproduct and is really meant to satisfy their own curiosity/obsession?

Yeah, I think there's an inherent sexism in the whole "well, yeah, but emotional labor (already coded as feminine) is kind of not all that important, so... it's reasonable that I as a man don't care about it." Unsurprising, though... Because patriarchy

Well, my argument isn't that womens' emotional labor isn't important. It's that it's analogous to mens' unrequested labor, which also goes unappreciated. It seems you disagree, but I'm confused about what you disagree with in my argument.

J Boogie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 850
Is it unreasonable to think of womens' expected activities as analogous to men's expected activities like taking out the trash, getting out of bed at night when a sound is heard, fixing things around the house, cleaning out the gutters, changing the tire when it goes flat, etc?

And is it unreasonable to think of womens' unrequested emotional labor as analogous to mens' unrequested analytical labor when they nerd out and go above and beyond to, for example, engineer a sophisticated hydronic heating system, or dial in on the perfect thermostat settings for cost savings and comfort, or eliminate all air leaks in a house with weather stripping, etc? These things, like the emotional labor many women do, benefit others but aren't always requested and often seem to go unnoticed or in some cases teased as obsessive and/or nerdy behavior.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why women are uniquely unappreciated is why I mention this. I don't deny their emotional work is valuable and often underappreciated, but I can't help but see that men do many unrequested things that are valuable and often underappreciated as well - so I don't see this concept as particularly compelling.

Am I wrong in thinking these unrequested male behaviors are underappreciated by the opposite sex? Or am I wrong in thinking these behaviors are analogous because emotional labor is by its nature meant to benefit others, whereas mens' unrequested labor is only beneficial to others as a byproduct and is really meant to satisfy their own curiosity/obsession?

It's true there are some things that men traditionally do around the house. However study after study show, in sheer number of hours done, women do far more house and child work than men do per week, even if both sexes are working. So unless you are going to argue setting up the surround sound is more valuable than the work females are doing, there is still inequality. That said, men ARE doing much more housework than say 50 years ago. That is something to celebrate!
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-more-unpaid-work-women-do-than-men-2017-03-07

True, but in these studies they also demonstrate that men are on average working longer paid hours than their spouses. And in roughly 2/3rds of married/cohabitating couples, the men are earning more than their spouses.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/20/americans-see-men-as-the-financial-providers-even-as-womens-contributions-grow/

So there would be demonstrable inequality if housework WAS divided 50/50, as men are on average contributing more financially to their families.

Anecdotally speaking, I've been far more committed to my boring corporate desk job than if I wasn't married with a child. I would prefer to earn less as a timber framing carpenter or furniture maker, but I understand my family is better off with me working a stable and lucrative income and I shouldn't jeopardize that.

Likewise, my wife's understanding (she was laid off from her FT job about a year ago and has stayed home w 2.5 YO ever since) is that our family is better off right now with her holding things down at home. When she was working, she didn't view her job the same way I viewed mine because she wanted to keep the option open to be a SAHM and did not want to be a sole income earner with me as a SAHD.




Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4440
  • Age: 11
  • Location: USA
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

Why does it need to prompt the question ?  It just is. 

Why anyone would consider using paid vacation to help setup for some school dance is the real mystery here.
not to any civilized human

“all the other kids’ mommies were at the dance, why weren’t you there?”
But that's not what happened here (unless I misread mm1970's post).

The debate was not whether to go to the dance or not, it was whether to leave work early to help set it up, and her husband's reaction at being voluntold he was doing this.

Frankly I'm more baffled by the work environment (pretty sure we're talking highly skilled white collar work here, not hourly retail) that would impose putting down vacation time for leaving a couple of hours early on time to go to a school dance. Anything less than a half day shouldn't even be worth mentioning unless there is some important thing going on that day.

I agree that women put themselves under a lot more pressure to be there for their children and that there are a lot of shitty dads out there. My hunch is that it part societal pressures, part having the bloody thing grow inside you for 9 months, and they both feed off of each other. But what do I know.

Boofinator

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 677
And while we did go together to buy bikes for the kids and he said he was going to teach them to ride bikes, keeping them at grandmas house, in reality, he could not be bothered. So, neither of my kids learned how to ride a bike.

Wow. I think interacting with and teaching your kids is instrumental to parenting, and personally wouldn't term it emotional labor but the joy of parenthood. I feel sorry for your kids that they missed out on riding a bike from an early age.

As a woman, and not as a particularly "typical" woman (in my former relationship I was the breadwinner) I would say that kids and society would suffer, if women stopping doing what is called "emotional" labor. It's not just emotional. It is instrumental as well; making sure nutritional meals are made, the forms from school are filled out and returned, appointments are scheduled, kids are tucked in at night, and yes being present for the kids (whether it is pta meetings that help fund shortfalls for teachers and classrooms, parent teacher meetings, karate or art classes, getting the materials for their science fair poster).

For the sake of this conversation, let's not conflate emotional and non-emotional labor. I think everything quoted here falls under the latter, and absolutely is a form of work on par with any monetarily compensated labor.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4440
  • Age: 11
  • Location: USA
Until recently, women in America were considered as not being separate entities from their husbands. They were considered dependents, like children, or slaves. They could not own property in their own name or control their own earnings, except under very specific circumstances. When a husband died, his wife could not be the guardian to their under-age children.

Until as recently as the 1970s, women could not open a bank account without the consent of a husband or a father.

Women were not allowed to vote until 1920 in the US. 1945 for France, and even later in some places (and of course, there are countries in the world where women are still not allowed to vote at all).
Switzerland says hold my beer

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3748
Is it unreasonable to think of womens' expected activities as analogous to men's expected activities like taking out the trash, getting out of bed at night when a sound is heard, fixing things around the house, cleaning out the gutters, changing the tire when it goes flat, etc?

And is it unreasonable to think of womens' unrequested emotional labor as analogous to mens' unrequested analytical labor when they nerd out and go above and beyond to, for example, engineer a sophisticated hydronic heating system, or dial in on the perfect thermostat settings for cost savings and comfort, or eliminate all air leaks in a house with weather stripping, etc? These things, like the emotional labor many women do, benefit others but aren't always requested and often seem to go unnoticed or in some cases teased as obsessive and/or nerdy behavior.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why women are uniquely unappreciated is why I mention this. I don't deny their emotional work is valuable and often underappreciated, but I can't help but see that men do many unrequested things that are valuable and often underappreciated as well - so I don't see this concept as particularly compelling.

Am I wrong in thinking these unrequested male behaviors are underappreciated by the opposite sex? Or am I wrong in thinking these behaviors are analogous because emotional labor is by its nature meant to benefit others, whereas mens' unrequested labor is only beneficial to others as a byproduct and is really meant to satisfy their own curiosity/obsession?

Yeah, I think there's an inherent sexism in the whole "well, yeah, but emotional labor (already coded as feminine) is kind of not all that important, so... it's reasonable that I as a man don't care about it." Unsurprising, though... Because patriarchy

Well, my argument isn't that womens' emotional labor isn't important. It's that it's analogous to mens' unrequested labor, which also goes unappreciated. It seems you disagree, but I'm confused about what you disagree with in my argument.

Well, the thing is, I think that the idea of men going "above and beyond," as you say above, is part of the issue. And the fact that those kinds of things also tend to be one-time, large projects -- often initiated by the man himself -- instead of daily/weekly/monthly tasks designed to keep the house going.

It's not that that stuff isn't great. It's precisely that it's considered "extra." Whereas the work I'm talking about is considered "expected." I think it's great that my husband does stuff like that. But it's stuff that he actually enjoys, and engineers as a project. I am very appreciative. In between cleaning out the litter box and doing the laundry, that is.

Edit: Example of "emotional labor" that I am doing in our household, that probably "should" fall to my husband, all things being equal: Buying Christmas and birthday presents for his two adult children (I have no children of my own), their spouses, and the grandkids. My husband barely remembers his daughters' birthdays, and has no idea when the grandkids' birthdays are.

(N.B.: In my household, the labor is actually very equally distributed as to the regular household chores. I am not complaining about that. But yes, on top of that, I still am the emotional labor person, for sure.)
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 09:34:34 AM by Kris »

Boofinator

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 677
To (respectfully) play the devil's advocate, is it possible your husband just gives less fucks than you about the dance?

It might well be. But that still prompts the question, why does he care less? And why does almost every other father also care less?

Why does it need to prompt the question ?  It just is. 

Why anyone would consider using paid vacation to help setup for some school dance is the real mystery here.
not to any civilized human

“all the other kids’ mommies were at the dance, why weren’t you there?”

My retort would have to recall the Joneses: "All the other kids' mommies bought a new Volvo with the latest and greatest safety features to protect their families, do you not care about the lives of your children?" (And of course, the OP was pressured into going to the dance precisely because all of the other kids' mommies (and daddies) weren't at the dance.)

Sometimes it is better to just say no.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3961
  • Location: Avalon
Sometimes it is better to just say no.


Better for whom?  Kids learn from their parents, and what they learn is not always what the parents intend to teach them.  And if they learn the wrong lessons there will come a point, all too soon, when it is too late to start teaching the right ones.