6 ms·

Because traditional gender roles dictate that the man in the relationship to be the breadwinner and being a bum doing nothing all day long wouldn't bode well fo

Because traditional gender roles dictate that the man in the relationship to be the breadwinner and being a bum doing nothing all day long wouldn't bode well for the woman in the relationship and given that feminists are against the status quo and traditional gender roles, it would look hypocritical that they disqualify a male suitor or partner for a romance or LT relationship based on their LT employment outlook or prospects.

EliRivers 10y ago
Oh right, traditional gender roles. I thought this feminism was the advocation of equal social and political rights, but actually this is something else on top. I seem to be an appallingly bad feminist. For me, it's about equal social and political rights, but it turns out it's really all about a whole lot of crazy stuff I don't understand. It's odd that the people who most loudly understand what feminism really is seem to be those opposed to it, and people who simply label themselves feminists (such as myself) end up mystified by where all this extra junk comes from. Sometimes I wonder if perhaps people aren't conflating advocation of equal social and political rights with a whole lot of other things, but it's generally not worth the conversation.
- FabHK 10y ago
  So have equal political and social rights been achieved yet? I'd assume that for political rights, the answer is yes. Not sure about social rights - could you elaborate?
  - EliRivers 10y ago
    I think you're more than capable of digging up answers to that question yourself. I do apologise if you're genuine; you seem genuine, and your website certainly paints you as a reasonable person, but I've just had too many bad experiences in such discussions online that I no longer engage in them. I'm sure you can imagine the kind of thing. HN in particular seems to suffer from it; a disturbing sense of perceived victimhood in some that poisons their conversation.
    - emiliobumachar 10y ago
      The problem with finding examples ourselves is that we don't know what you meant by the terms you used. I, for one, would have some difficulty drawing the line between "social equality" and "other stuff on top", such as getting rid of traditional gender roles. (what I see as) the mainstream feminist position is that getting rid of traditional gender roles is essential to achieve equal social rights. It's not really equal if one can legally do a thing but everyone else will think it's innappropriate.
    - FabHK 10y ago
      Thanks for giving the benefit of the doubt. What you describe as "political rights" I can get fully behind, and it seems to me we're mostly there yet. "Social rights" I'm genuinely not sure what you mean, it seems reasonable. But the problem is that a lot of contemporary feminism seems to entail a lot more (with some of which I disagree), that's why it would be important to understand what is meant by "social rights" here. But fair enough, HN might not be the best place to discuss that in detail.
- ratacat 10y ago
  It's also worth pointing out that there is no "feminism", any more than there is one "american". There are as many meanings and iterative ideas that get labeled as feminism(by originators, and relative strangers) as there are different people in this country.
Jill_the_Pill 10y ago
There's a big gap between not-being-a-breadwinner and being a bum. My sister's ex stopped working and stopped looking for work. That in itself wouldn't have been bad -- they were financially ok. But, she would still come home from her long day of work and do the dishes and laundry and cook supper (for her a chore, not a hobby). I have other friends with unemployed husbands where the dad does 90% of the childcare and most of the housework, and that seems to work out pretty well. People like a team effort, regardless of who is doing what.
- stefco_ 10y ago
  This. It is very common for guys who are out of work to be much less productive around the house despite having more time available to dedicate to housework. Tons of guys are not brought up doing housework and being detail-oriented about this stuff, so in a lot of relationships where the guy is at home more often (for whatever reason), he doesn't know how to pick up the slack at home. I'm not saying this is because those guys are dumb or lazy or malicious; I have trouble with it and don't consider myself those things. My girlfriend and I try to split stuff up evenly (we both have jobs and neither of us likes housework, so we try to be fair), but I still find it hard to remember to do certain things that she has been doing for years (e.g. remembering to clean the toilet bowl), or I will not prioritize certain other things that she makes sure to do promptly (e.g. I will wait longer to do laundry). I am trying to pull my weight, but I can definitely tell that I am catching up to her in housework productivity. And, from most anecdotes I hear, this is a very common (though obviously not universal) phenomenon. This is not to say that there are not other things wrapped up in this (people are attracted to roles, and I am sure plenty of women in traditional subcultures find jobless men just plain unattractive regardless of their value in other dimensions). But I can definitely see why someone who is already going to have to raise and provide for a kid would be reluctant to bring another person into a lifelong relationship when that other person (judging from widespread anecdotal evidence) will very likely not be much help at home while also not contributing a paycheck.
  - douche 10y ago
    Housework is like a gas - it will expand to fill any volume of time that you are willing to allocate it. The dirty secret is that not doing some of it, or doing it on a more, eh, relaxed, timescale, doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Results vary according to your & your partners levels of OCD, however...
derrickdirge 10y ago
Not only would it look hypocritical to not enter into a relationship because someone doesn't fit into traditional gender roles, it would disqualify one from being a feminist altogether. That mentality is one of the reasons we need feminism. Women will only become increasingly equal to men as time goes on. If we blindly cling to antiquated, unrealistic notions of what constitutes an acceptable partner, we impede progress.

EliRivers 10y ago

Oh right, traditional gender roles. I thought this feminism was the advocation of equal social and political rights, but actually this is something else on top. I seem to be an appallingly bad feminist. For me, it's about equal social and political rights, but it turns out it's really all about a whole lot of crazy stuff I don't understand. It's odd that the people who most loudly understand what feminism really is seem to be those opposed to it, and people who simply label themselves feminists (such as myself) end up mystified by where all this extra junk comes from. Sometimes I wonder if perhaps people aren't conflating advocation of equal social and political rights with a whole lot of other things, but it's generally not worth the conversation.

FabHK 10y ago
So have equal political and social rights been achieved yet? I'd assume that for political rights, the answer is yes. Not sure about social rights - could you elaborate?
- EliRivers 10y ago
  I think you're more than capable of digging up answers to that question yourself. I do apologise if you're genuine; you seem genuine, and your website certainly paints you as a reasonable person, but I've just had too many bad experiences in such discussions online that I no longer engage in them. I'm sure you can imagine the kind of thing. HN in particular seems to suffer from it; a disturbing sense of perceived victimhood in some that poisons their conversation.
  - emiliobumachar 10y ago
    The problem with finding examples ourselves is that we don't know what you meant by the terms you used. I, for one, would have some difficulty drawing the line between "social equality" and "other stuff on top", such as getting rid of traditional gender roles. (what I see as) the mainstream feminist position is that getting rid of traditional gender roles is essential to achieve equal social rights. It's not really equal if one can legally do a thing but everyone else will think it's innappropriate.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    Thanks for giving the benefit of the doubt. What you describe as "political rights" I can get fully behind, and it seems to me we're mostly there yet. "Social rights" I'm genuinely not sure what you mean, it seems reasonable. But the problem is that a lot of contemporary feminism seems to entail a lot more (with some of which I disagree), that's why it would be important to understand what is meant by "social rights" here. But fair enough, HN might not be the best place to discuss that in detail.
ratacat 10y ago
It's also worth pointing out that there is no "feminism", any more than there is one "american". There are as many meanings and iterative ideas that get labeled as feminism(by originators, and relative strangers) as there are different people in this country.

Jill_the_Pill 10y ago

There's a big gap between not-being-a-breadwinner and being a bum. My sister's ex stopped working and stopped looking for work. That in itself wouldn't have been bad -- they were financially ok. But, she would still come home from her long day of work and do the dishes and laundry and cook supper (for her a chore, not a hobby). I have other friends with unemployed husbands where the dad does 90% of the childcare and most of the housework, and that seems to work out pretty well. People like a team effort, regardless of who is doing what.

stefco_ 10y ago
This. It is very common for guys who are out of work to be much less productive around the house despite having more time available to dedicate to housework. Tons of guys are not brought up doing housework and being detail-oriented about this stuff, so in a lot of relationships where the guy is at home more often (for whatever reason), he doesn't know how to pick up the slack at home. I'm not saying this is because those guys are dumb or lazy or malicious; I have trouble with it and don't consider myself those things. My girlfriend and I try to split stuff up evenly (we both have jobs and neither of us likes housework, so we try to be fair), but I still find it hard to remember to do certain things that she has been doing for years (e.g. remembering to clean the toilet bowl), or I will not prioritize certain other things that she makes sure to do promptly (e.g. I will wait longer to do laundry). I am trying to pull my weight, but I can definitely tell that I am catching up to her in housework productivity. And, from most anecdotes I hear, this is a very common (though obviously not universal) phenomenon. This is not to say that there are not other things wrapped up in this (people are attracted to roles, and I am sure plenty of women in traditional subcultures find jobless men just plain unattractive regardless of their value in other dimensions). But I can definitely see why someone who is already going to have to raise and provide for a kid would be reluctant to bring another person into a lifelong relationship when that other person (judging from widespread anecdotal evidence) will very likely not be much help at home while also not contributing a paycheck.
- douche 10y ago
  Housework is like a gas - it will expand to fill any volume of time that you are willing to allocate it. The dirty secret is that not doing some of it, or doing it on a more, eh, relaxed, timescale, doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Results vary according to your & your partners levels of OCD, however...

derrickdirge 10y ago

Not only would it look hypocritical to not enter into a relationship because someone doesn't fit into traditional gender roles, it would disqualify one from being a feminist altogether. That mentality is one of the reasons we need feminism. Women will only become increasingly equal to men as time goes on. If we blindly cling to antiquated, unrealistic notions of what constitutes an acceptable partner, we impede progress.