5 ms·

>>>but I'm hoping society will adjust to a point where traditional femininity can peacefully coexist as a respected choice for women on how to live their lives,

>>>but I'm hoping society will adjust to a point where traditional femininity can peacefully coexist as a respected choice for women on how to live their lives, because I think it can be a suitable, powerful, happy, and meaningful for choice for many women<<< That's the linchpin you see. The truth is that femininity and masculinity are a continuous spectrum of variation and almost all such statements tend to prescribe something or the other. To tell you the truth I fulfill the stereotype you are proposing in quite a few ways, but most women don't. Just as most males aren't the fist beating cavemen they are made out to be. Why can't we let people just be? Why do we need to box them into little boxes, so that they conveniently fit into our tiny little realities? Why do we need to make statements like, it's tough to be a man/woman/american/indian/african american/whatever category you can come up with? It is shocking just how ingrained this is into our consciousness and even though I can articulate it I still can't get it out of my head. I still box people in. Look earlier women who had it in them to become scientists were told explicitly that they should become housewives. Take a look at Joan Feynman; her thesis adviser told her the only geometry she needed to learn was the geometry of the cobwebs she should be cleaning at home. Imagine what would have happened if she would have given up. We would have lost a great mind to something as abhorrent as prejudice. The same lesson still exists. Let the kid be. Let her grow up into who she wants to be. Not who society thinks she ought to be. She will be depressed if you take the fight out of her so that you can squeeze her into a housewife. She will be depressed if you force her onto a stage against her wish. She will be depressed in all the cases where you push her into becoming something she isn't. I think that this is what you were trying to say. On the other hand, what boggles my mind is why aren't more males taught to exit their boxes and give a hand in raising their kids. Raising a human being isn't a full time job if it's a shared responsibility and I think expecting anything other than that is just another small box.

caf 16y ago
Aye - being a stay-at-home husband and father ought to be as equally socially acceptable as wife & mother.
- megablast 16y ago
  No, I am sorry it is not. Anybody can stay at home. Not anyone can start up a company, or work at a senior level, or even work at a technical level. There are plenty of people who could never achieve that level of competence, they can stay at home.
  - dhimes 16y ago
    I strongly disagree. It should be the choice of the man, or at least of the family. Society shouldn't punish men socially for making that choice.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - moron4hire 16y ago
    I know a lot of terrible parents, and they aren't all dead-beats or alcoholics, they're just assholes who treat their families like shit. If one of the parental figures is an emotionally abusive person, then it'd probably be a net benefit to the family if that person were a workaholic who doesn't spend much time with the kids. Sure, they probably shouldn't have had a family in the first place, but it doesn't always work out that way. Not just anyone can stay at home and raise the family.
  - mortenjorck 16y ago
    I hear running a startup and raising kids both tend to involve rather significant amounts of drive, talent, and time investment to be successful.
  - run4yourlives 16y ago
    Something tells me you do not have a family.
    - sdelmont 16y ago
      something tells me he will never have a family
wake_up_sticky 16y ago
While I agree that we shouldn't put people into boxes (figuratively or literally), the problem with what you're suggesting is that people become depressed when they don't know what society expects of them. This may be inconvenient, but it's true. Telling someone, "You can do whatever you want with your life; we're not going to tell you what to do" is effectively telling them, "We're not going to tell you what society values and expects from you; you won't get any guidance from us." It can be almost as bad to have too much choice as it is to have too little.
- todayiamme 16y ago
  Actually, this is a fallacy that you start believing the traditional parenting point of view. I think that a parent's role is basically teaching the kids how to make the right choice. Not making the choice for them. It's true that early on you need to nurture and protect them by taking stuff into your hands, but by the age they need to start thinking about stuff like this. They should be mature enough to do that, because you can't be there for them all their life telling them what to do, can you? It's just that your role as a nurturer needs to evolve with time as the dynamics of the relationship changes, and you need to respect that. Not fight it.
  - wake_up_sticky 16y ago
    The problem is that there are an overwhelming number of choices when it comes to what to do with one's life. Parents need to at least make it clear that there's a relatively small subset of these choices which are acceptable. (Not a handful of choices, but maybe a couple dozen or so.)
Ardit20 16y ago
"Why do we need to box them into little boxes, so that they conveniently fit into our tiny little realities?" Simple, because one has a penis and the other a vagina. If you are going to downvote at this point, refrain. It is simply an example to suggest that women and men are fundamentally different. One provides one part of the equation, the other provides the other part of the equation. That does not mean that either is superior, but it does mean that in any household, unless the household is sufficiently rich, one will have to look after the children, while the other provides the resources for the former to do so. It is called distribution of labour. Women have those sort of qualities which lead them to be more suited to nurture children. Men do not. Is that cultural, I doubt it. You find it in most animal species too. Perhaps, women see the grass to be greener on the other side, rather than to consider their grass as very green and pleasant. They get to go shopping with men's money, they get to spend all their day sitting on their ass, they get to have friends to chat with about pleasant things, they get to have all they want. If they want to trouble their brains, then it is simply not true that society has prohibited them from doing so. In any time and nation there have been women who have engaged in all sorts of intellectual endeavours. However, as much un PC as this may be and controversial, the best of women are simply not better than the best of men. Thus, excepting personal liberty of choice, focusing instead on the grander picture of division of labour, based on matters of fact only, society would do better if women did what they are best at, that is nurture their children, except for many women who are better than their husband to use their brains to gain resources so that it justifies for the husband to perform the function of nurturing the children, and men do their best which is to provide the resources for their wives to nurture their children. What is the alternative? That men look after the children?

caf 16y ago

Aye - being a stay-at-home husband and father ought to be as equally socially acceptable as wife & mother.

megablast 16y ago
No, I am sorry it is not. Anybody can stay at home. Not anyone can start up a company, or work at a senior level, or even work at a technical level. There are plenty of people who could never achieve that level of competence, they can stay at home.
- dhimes 16y ago
  I strongly disagree. It should be the choice of the man, or at least of the family. Society shouldn't punish men socially for making that choice.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- moron4hire 16y ago
  I know a lot of terrible parents, and they aren't all dead-beats or alcoholics, they're just assholes who treat their families like shit. If one of the parental figures is an emotionally abusive person, then it'd probably be a net benefit to the family if that person were a workaholic who doesn't spend much time with the kids. Sure, they probably shouldn't have had a family in the first place, but it doesn't always work out that way. Not just anyone can stay at home and raise the family.
- mortenjorck 16y ago
  I hear running a startup and raising kids both tend to involve rather significant amounts of drive, talent, and time investment to be successful.
- run4yourlives 16y ago
  Something tells me you do not have a family.
  - sdelmont 16y ago
    something tells me he will never have a family

wake_up_sticky 16y ago

While I agree that we shouldn't put people into boxes (figuratively or literally), the problem with what you're suggesting is that people become depressed when they don't know what society expects of them. This may be inconvenient, but it's true. Telling someone, "You can do whatever you want with your life; we're not going to tell you what to do" is effectively telling them, "We're not going to tell you what society values and expects from you; you won't get any guidance from us." It can be almost as bad to have too much choice as it is to have too little.

todayiamme 16y ago
Actually, this is a fallacy that you start believing the traditional parenting point of view. I think that a parent's role is basically teaching the kids how to make the right choice. Not making the choice for them. It's true that early on you need to nurture and protect them by taking stuff into your hands, but by the age they need to start thinking about stuff like this. They should be mature enough to do that, because you can't be there for them all their life telling them what to do, can you? It's just that your role as a nurturer needs to evolve with time as the dynamics of the relationship changes, and you need to respect that. Not fight it.
- wake_up_sticky 16y ago
  The problem is that there are an overwhelming number of choices when it comes to what to do with one's life. Parents need to at least make it clear that there's a relatively small subset of these choices which are acceptable. (Not a handful of choices, but maybe a couple dozen or so.)

Ardit20 16y ago

"Why do we need to box them into little boxes, so that they conveniently fit into our tiny little realities?" Simple, because one has a penis and the other a vagina. If you are going to downvote at this point, refrain. It is simply an example to suggest that women and men are fundamentally different. One provides one part of the equation, the other provides the other part of the equation. That does not mean that either is superior, but it does mean that in any household, unless the household is sufficiently rich, one will have to look after the children, while the other provides the resources for the former to do so. It is called distribution of labour. Women have those sort of qualities which lead them to be more suited to nurture children. Men do not. Is that cultural, I doubt it. You find it in most animal species too. Perhaps, women see the grass to be greener on the other side, rather than to consider their grass as very green and pleasant. They get to go shopping with men's money, they get to spend all their day sitting on their ass, they get to have friends to chat with about pleasant things, they get to have all they want. If they want to trouble their brains, then it is simply not true that society has prohibited them from doing so. In any time and nation there have been women who have engaged in all sorts of intellectual endeavours. However, as much un PC as this may be and controversial, the best of women are simply not better than the best of men. Thus, excepting personal liberty of choice, focusing instead on the grander picture of division of labour, based on matters of fact only, society would do better if women did what they are best at, that is nurture their children, except for many women who are better than their husband to use their brains to gain resources so that it justifies for the husband to perform the function of nurturing the children, and men do their best which is to provide the resources for their wives to nurture their children. What is the alternative? That men look after the children?