except it is asking "where are all the good women?"

Which is something that I also asked in the Ensler thread.

The Ensler thread asked "Why aren't more men driven to madness and protest against this patriarchal culture?" The OP asks "Why aren't more women ..."

But I think the OP is wrong almost from the get-go. As it says "women are subordinate in this culture". I would say the opposite is true. That it is the men who are subordinate. Although really subordinate is less divided along gender lines than it is along class lines.

it was put in purposely to be offensive and OP'er get a fuckin kick. and rape is not a tool to use for HIS kicks and giggles.

ergo, the backlash from men.

and should edit.

wrong.

you do not get to say it is comparative to what ensler said and then say.... IN EFFECT.

that is dishonest

and towards how individuals feel, it's hard to take any of this discussion seriously.

put us women in our place, all on your own and then question why... women put up with this shit.

oh wait. i do not.

but, nothing about honest is in the conversation

certainly it is a little bit

and the Ensler quote pretty much implied, even if it did not directly state that "men are for rape". That is the suggested answer to the rhetorical question "why aren't you (men) driven to the point of madness and action by the rape and humiliation?"

Because, apparently, men are for rape.

the OP just stated it whereas Ensler implied it.

that is a dishonest interpretation of what she said.

hold to subsequent conversation in this subthread.

it is dishonest.

at least on a personal level. You seem to be addressing that, as opposed to the societal level of patriarchy. I think women are speaking out against the traditional gender issues with regard to employment, reproductive choice, etc. which are playing out on a larger scale.

But when you go inside someone's home and try to draw conclusions you are setting yourself up for failure. Men and women take on different roles within their household and if two people decide that it works for them, I'm not sure you can be critical of those decisions and assume that the woman is passively accepting patriarchy. It may be exactly what she and her husband want.

I don't know, maybe we're both crazy.

True, of course. But why is it that in, say, 95 percent of those households, the roles are pretty much the same?

Years ago, my now ex-SO were raising our kids in an intact household. We both worked full-time outside the home and the household chores split pretty evenly along traditional gender roles. We were both okay with this - he did the heavy dirty stuff that I didn't like, and I did most of the basic child care, which he didn't like (no poopy diapers for him). The roles were gender-traditional but egalitarian and we both liked it that way.

The only sticking point for me was that he was fine Monday - Friday, but he considered weekends to be His Time. He would disappear for hours on end on Saturday and Sunday and leave me responsible for everything, and I can assure you that I protested that mightily. I never got any time to myself and I was NOT happy, but he wouldn't change. I put up with it for as long as I did because it was more important to me, at that time, for my kids to grow up in a two-parent household.

We eventually split up for reasons that had little to do with how the chores were assigned. You asked why roles tended to be the same and I gave you my take on the issue, and I don't think my feelings are all that unusual.

I think this is something we've adopted from the Athenians much like democracy and went with it. In Sparta women had property and had a very similar social power as men---and this was the case in most primitive cultures. So this is something that has started somewhere and made conventional by our time.

say they see the old stereotypes around them every day. I don't see it so much in NY/ NJ. Most of the couples I know, the women are the main breadwinners, their partners very flexible about childcare and housework, and glad not to be careerists. A lot of alternate lifestyles too. It's hard for me to to imagine this is not more common in this day and age, at least among liberals.

Look at it this way. In my bachelor household, I do everything. I do all the cooking, all the laundry, all the cleaning, all the dish washing and table setting. I feed the dogs, let them outside, let them inside, pick up their poop in the yard. I do all the shopping, pay all the bills, do all the home repairs, take care of the car, cut the grass, water the plants, etc. etc. etc.

Now a single woman somewhere in America is also doing all of her own life-work.

Suppose I were to meet a really desperate woman and she settled for me. Is she gonna end up doing most of the cooking and cleaning and laundry? Perhaps. Probably? Chances are very, very good, that she will not WANT me to cook. That she will take over the kitchen as HER space and not want me messing around in it/with it. Same with the house-cleaning. My own house, even in my eyes, is a bit of a pigsty. I try for a modicum of organization, but it is not a priority. Chances are the average woman is not gonna want to live in such a pigsty and that she will either be picking it up, ordering me to pick it up, or we will be fighting about it. Currently though, I pretty much pick up where and when I want to.

However, if you look at that list of tasks, all of which I do myself, and all of which she does herself - if we combine together we will a) reduce our total expenses (no longer will we have two garbage bills, two utility bills, two house payments, two auto insurance payments) but also b) no matter how we divide the housework, chances are very good that BOTH of us will end up doing less than we did before we got together. I, as the lazy ol husband, may not do enough, and will have to be nagged by my supervisor (spouse) to do even that, but I will do something, something that otherwise she would have had to do.

Now, you might think she is now doing the work for two. But consider a shopping trip. Two single people drive to the store, park, walk around the store buying stuff, stand in line, load up the car and drive back. It takes just about as much time to shop for one as it does for two. As a pair, we can save total time that way. That even if I end up doing less than half, that she will still come out ahead of where she was as a single woman even without including the value of my prodigious skills as a lover, and my ability to make her laugh with my self-deprecating humour.

more work than just doing myself. and takes more time. i clean more often. takes more time to clean. ect....

so, you do not have it right.

as is not realizing that it's extra work doing it for two.

for both of us. and we have the environment that works both for us.

the really sad thing though, lol. his cooking kicked my ass for many many years. lol. i would say, gotta have some good food, you cook tonight.

i have gotten to be a good cook, so he does not cook as much as the past. but.... meh, ok.

again, it works for us. we wanted someone home with the kids. he has a masters. i do not have a degree.

so, again, look at the alternative - single mom picking up after and taking care of two kids versus married mom picking up after and taking care of three kids (LOL, as the standard joke goes). I still say the husband is a net positive - even if he only cuts the grass and takes out the trash. And he is probably doing other things that do not get counted. If I go out and play football with my sons in the back yard, in one sense that is not work, but in another sense, it is child care. Plus, the extra income is a positive.

But then look at house cleaning. As a single guy, I do all of my own housecleaning, but I don't do it very often or very well. It is not that important to me to have a tidy house. Now as a married guy, I would certainly be happy to do the same amount of housecleaning, or even a bit more, than I do as a single guy. But chances are very good, that my poor spouse would be unable to tolerate the level of slovenliness that I do, and thus would be cleaning up my messes before I could (or would) get to them. The same might easily be true of the laundry. She would get tired of looking at my piles of dirty clothes. Thus, at least in my imagination, unless I can find another lazy slob to marry, she might be doing much more of the housecleaning and laundry than I am, but those would be HER OWN choices to do so, not choices that I am imposing on her.

I gotta say though, in my defense, that I am a helpful sort of person. A few times I have been staying with my married friends and the wife says "go get the dog" and the husband wants to play "rock, paper, scissors" to see who has to get the dog. Whereas I, even as a guest, do not mind making myself useful by doing a simple task.

about gender. secondly, would have a hell of a lot to do whether the other person is considerate or not, to factor in to how much "extra" work it is and how much more time consuming. i cleaned my house once a week. now, i clean daily. at least pick up. in the past i didnt need to pick up cause i put everything away.

on the other hand, my hubby puts stuff away, so i am not picking up after him.

though, there may be a partner that is as bad as a kid in not picking up after themselves. that is inconsiderate in my book, but would also result into a significant amount of tiem with extra work.

then on the other hand, there is the point that with another, there is less work.

but, single, i would also be happy with cereal for dinner, or nothing for dinner most nights. doesnt work that way if cooking for others.

all a huge, meh.

i know when i was single, i would tell my married, i have no help. ALL is left to me. and working 50 hours a week or more.

there is truth in that also.

is my advice. They're out there. And I don't say that judgmentally. I understand for some it's not a priority. Maybe if you had enough income you could split the cost of a cleaner.

But if you try to justify a wife cleaning up after you as "her choice" -- think about that...

Women who just expect to be someone's slave and do all the cleaning--especially if obsessively & constantly--well, I'd question whether they have their heads screwed on straight.

that I will not find anyone to marry

so I am just specilating. Chances are very good that the typical woman would clean up rather than allow me to do so at my own pace, but chances are very good that the typical woman would also force me to do more cleaning than I otherwise would. Because now I decide what I want to do, within limits, and I do it. I imagine that if I was married, things would go more like this. I would sit down to fiddle away some hours on the computer as I now do with much of my free time, and spouse would ask "what are you doing?" and I would reply "I am going to fart around on DU for a couple of hours." and she would say "oh no, I want you to do this that and the other thing" or "we are gonna do such and such" or "first you need to get some of these chores done."

At least in my experience, other people are often quite bossy and demanding.

Either that, or all my organized chaos would be consigned to some "man cave" corner of the house.

Any "slavery" such as it is, would not be to MY demands, but would be to HER own expectations or those of her peer group. Gotta keep the house clean so your sister/mother/brother/friends don't talk trash about your poor housekeeping. Of course, I fall under some of the same expectations, spending an hour or two cleaning before my family visits - but it is never enough.

I do understand what you are saying. I have a guy friend (50) who has the same concerns as you. And my own dad, after divorce, lived for 40 years saying, "I don't want anyone ever telling me what to do again." He was a very honest kind of guy. So I do understand "organized chaos." Some people DO function best in it--absolutely. You have to be careful not to set up any unrealistic expectations. (But if you're using the clutter to keep somebody out...that would be using it as a crutch)....

Maybe you can find someone who has her own organized clutter --look for busy geeks or maybe an artist or writer--I've known plenty. Not all women are neat freaks.

example
Personals: "Me--messy and like it. You--a person who also functions best in organized chaos."

I would like my spouse/boyfrien to do that instead. As far as laundry and cleaning, I outsource as a single person and would definitely expect to do so if I was living with a man. I think it would go a long way in keeping the peace. (I do some of my own cleaning, only have a cleaner in every once in a while.) I haven't done my own laundry since graduate school.

and don't really want somebody to cook for me, I just cannot imagine that somebody would want ME to cook for them. Maybe bake for them - my sister was impressed by my peanut butter kochies, and I have made some decent pies - using a crust mix.

But I mostly don't cook. I make rice or pasta and then open a can. Although, I bet my casserole stew would be more popular than some of the stuff my mom made.

The funny thing is, that I myself AM a professional cleaner, and pretty good at it, but I have no more interest in doing that at home than I do in taking care of the yard. But I would consider hiring it out even more a waste of money than doing it is a waste of time.

I couldn't tell if this was a serious post or not.

Very quickly you got the only reaction I really intended from this. I read that whole freaking thread and just felt bemused. I think I do have a more serious perspective, maybe I'll take the time to type that up latter.

Last edited Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:08 PM - Edit history (1)

but in a judeo-christian context, I always thought it odd that devout christian women, or just christian women who also rail against patriarchal society don't care that they worship a male figure. I know it's not about that to them, I have this need to make sense of things and that's one of those things that I developed a thought on and it's always nagged me to find some answer to it. I'm weird like that.

I think many women have a conflict with patriarchy in religion.

Catholicism does have Mary and the female saints, tho all the more reason they should let women into the top echelons. Protestantism seems to be trying to elevate Mary Magdalen, esp if she was Jesus' wife and a major disciple. Plenty of Goddesses in Hinduism. In Buddhism, there are female Buddhas and anyway in Buddhism, there is "no gender." Islam--well, most of us would have a big problem with that POV. Taoism has no god but Nature.

Of course you don't have to take religious figures so literally re. gender (enlightened beings are embodiments of both)--however most people are literal.

Here's the problem as I see it--I have NO problem with any important religious figures that were human being admired for their teachings and whatnot by the opposite sex.

Where the problem is for me, is in the religions that make the one and only GOD --male only. That DOES do a big whammy on girls. You may be sure of that. But since it's abstract anyway for most kids, it gets sublimated.

In Monotheism--children should be taught that the One God is male/female or neither. I prefer neither.

Wanna start a religion?

I do not accept gender roles. I am an individual. I would be mad if I had conformed to them.

but honestly, probably 80% of the families I know include both parents working and sharing responsibilities. Most of the remainder are farm families, where one has other employment to supplement the farm income, and the other handles a large amount of the farming .... and that's not always the man, by any means. I don't even see that the 'patriarchy', as you're referring to it, is involved in any way with these families, other than they live under the same capitalistic patriarchal system that's spread its dirty tentacles into everything from basic human rights to objectifying and exploiting in the media all around the world ... which hurts everyone, not just women.

I don't understand your 'in favour of rape' question at all.

She was running for Senator in Nevada against Ried. I sincerely felt she was pro rape. And many of the Republican women who voted against legislation to protect women and voted for legislation to force women even those in cases of rape to have their children---makes me think they are underlying acceptance of rape. Well in effect the fact that they are supporting forcing a woman who might against giving birth of her rapists child to give birth is supporting the action that brought the woman to the tragic situation she is in.

We would disagree if that was the interpretation given to us.

They have a massive disregard for the emotional or even physical welfare of the women and I had wondered how they are women themselves and have no sympathy let alone empathy for these women. Hardly---pro-choice if we need to go into the semantics of it says that you have a choice of following through with the pregnancy or not! It has absolutely nothing to do with pro-death.

However, pro-life becoming so stringent that even the exemption of women who were raped, pregnant due to incest, or because of death are denied even that exemption and forced to have the pregnancy---now we have no shroud of support or care for the woman and I have to wonder if people would go as far as to support those actions. Sharron Angle's statement of making lemonade out of lemons I heavily resented and so did the constituents of Nevada. But I wanted to say I read her flippancy as someone who cares nothing for the woman affected and therefore supportive of the action that led to it.

If you were concerned about those things those three major elements that still gave Republicans some relevance in women's rights to total disintegration of those rights for extreme puritanic beliefs says to me she's supportive of the barbaric action in the first place. Since the possible consequences are no big deal.

Last edited Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:08 PM - Edit history (1)

And make them think about what their statements reflect to some people. Myself included as someone who has been assaulted.

what ensler was saying with her statement, and he suggesting women are for rape.

a disgusting comment on his part.

but it is very hostile towards women, and I get how it feels that way.
thanks for explaining further! i do appreciate it.

I don't think she represents many women at all. You do?

just my personal feeling, I respect that you feel differently.

This is why I took the posters question at face value and did not find it facetious at all.

with this "god's plan" nonsense. As screwed up as it is, it's not supporting the crime of rape.
It's making excuses for not doing anything about it by hiding behind religion. No small difference.

They see rape victims as women who didn't play by the rules, and therefore they are fine with women being raped and forced to bear the rapists child as punishment for their 'wanton' ways. For them it's a way to impose their vision of proper womanly behavior on other women at any cost.

express this idea, i am not going to give it to them. whether i politically agree with them or not. i think that is so wrong.

"interference" at all. Everything is god's will, not just rape.
A lot of not horrible people use that as a tool to find acceptance or peace in regards to their circumstances- without ever thinking horrible things are good. I think a few twisted repukes grabbed on to this concept lately, and I'm not seeing it go over too well. The god's revenge POV is still fringe- but the small govt, vote against any progressive legislation and pull a reason out of your butt later thing is not. Way too many voters are low info, don't even know what is in their best interests.

And her views are actually shared by 95% of Republican women in Congress today based on their voting records. This was talked about in detail on Rachel Maddow's show. Not to mention these women don't speak against their male Republican counter parts who have said many atrocious things against women....making them engaged and accomplices in Patriarchal dominance.

You're making assumptions based on the way your mind works and how YOU think of things.

It does not mean you are in favor of rape if you are against certain legislation that YOU think protects against it. There are reasons to be against any legislation.

Boxer voted against the filibuster bill recently. Did you ask why she is FOR the Republicans filibustering? Or did you know that she voted against that legislation for some other reason, because your common sense told you that she would not be FOR Republican obstructionistic filibustering.

Your common sense should be applied in the case of rape comments, as well.

poorly phrased and hyperbolic.

and never forget their grandmothers and mothers.

Leaving life's decisions to an imaginary friend is the real problem not help from government.

the desire to follow the typical life script of getting married, buying a house, and having kids. Most people don't question this, they just fall into line lock-step.

I feel so alone in my thinking sometimes

At least three of my closest friends from college (33 years ago) and I are unmarried and not looking to change our status.

I have no particular problem with marriage per se. I do have a problem with the wedding industry. And I do have a problem with the sexist aspects of marriage, like name changing. I mean who cares if you don't have the same last name?

The wedding industry makes me ill. Actually, I don't know any women who have taken their husband's name. I do live in SoCal, so things are less uptight in general here.

I thought there was something wrong with me for not wanting those things. I observed at an early age what drudgery most women went through and never wanted that for myself. I have never wanted children and I am still on the fence about marriage. I am a city person, so I rent an apartment. I would love to be able to afford to buy, but unfortunately my massive grad stuent loan debt will make this nearly impossible for me.

I knew at about age 10 that I didn't want to be married or have kids. Here I am at 49, still feeling the same! My like-minded boyfriend and I live together and don't want to marry. We live in an apt with our dog. We would love to rent a house someday but no interest in buying, especially now at our age. Plus, a decent house in our area would run $700K+. Not going to work with an art teacher's salary I just wish I knew more women who felt the same as I do to hang out with. I'm glad I'm meeting some here!

Personal experience: Our mother taught me to be independent, not to count on a man for security but she also taught my younger sister that she couldn't make it on her own and to find a husband to take care of her. Add into this mix, our father was a classic authoritarian who tried to control the lives and minds of my mother, my sister, and I. Our mother would resist up to a point and would decide whether to continue her arguments or to acquiesce. I got into trouble because I didn't give in to our father. Of course that would make him furious and he'd punish the family in retaliation. That meant my sister and brother would be pushing me "not to make Dad angry". I couldn't do it. I once got so exasperated with him, I called my father a Tsar to his face.

I later encountered professors and employers with a similar authoritarian bent. I would hold my tongue as long as possible and when I had to choose between being passive (damaging to me) and being independent, I'd choose the latter.

It isn't easy, but it's worth it.

..

independence women have gained over the years, the more the stereotypes have disappeared.

from the time we are babies we are conditioned by roles from everyone around us, family, media, society, our culture.

it is not that hard.

the women that do speak up get their asses handed to them. so, why do men have such a tough time giving up their power and control and dominance? can it be they have been conditioned from the beginning of their life that they are entitled to that power? that it is their privilege.

not a tough one.

the rape part is very disturbing and you seem to think cutsey. it is shit like this that like to fuzzy the line that promotes rape.

women are not "for" rape. as i would hope MOST men are not "for" rape. that is offensive and a shame that it was allowed to stay in your post. just another slap for any woman that is a victim.

but then, daring to call you out on it, i am sure i will have those that will go after me for daring to speak up.

I also think that organizational culture can play a big role in the workplace. There are some workplaces where gender is less of an issue than others, where there are strong women who help other women. Others are completely patriarchal and if there are any strong women, they are honorary men who don't mentor other women.
I feel that being a woman is much less of an issue where I work now than anywhere else. I can't say that it is a non issue, but much less so than anywhere else that I have worked.

and being on du, people telling me who i am in these evo psych studies totally thru me,. i was not conditioned to be that role. my whole life was about person and not gender.

Look at the way even toys are gendered in a way that didn't occur in the 1970s that I remember.

Also, the fact that it is expected still that women take the man's name after marriage. When I have told prospective boyfriends that I would refuse to do this, some of them balked. Others didn't and my most recent ex apparently didn't care either, but he was worried what his family would think.

Ask any prominent woman in the skeptical movement or the tech industry how they are treated when they merely question why there are not as many women in those areas and they are vilified online. They are called nasty names, threatened with rape, etc. Anything that threatens male privilege seems to bring out a lot of ugliness and misogyny.

I don't accept traditional gender roles myself. I am a scientist, albeit in a field that is more egalitarian than most (biology) but I have been in meetings in which I was the only woman present. Not that that is necessarily a problem in itself. But I have heard of professional meetings where there is a great deal of sexual harassment.

Also I should say that my having a Master's degree is sometimes apparently threatening to some men. Since I've broken up with my boyfriend and moved to a small, NC town, I have a difficult time finding guys who want to meet me. Unfortunately jobs in my field and my particular area of expertise tend to be in small towns in the south. So it's a question of numbers. I won't accept anything less than an egalitarian relationship. I'm not going to be the only one doing laundry, for example. Living in this environment makes those people hard to find.

word to describe it.

backlash.

that is what has happened that women have dared stepped out of the patriarchy role. and the more we walk away, the harder and harsher the backlash is.

needs their support and protection. They are actually afraid of women who don't force them into traditional gender roles, and want the upper hand. It's weird to see them admit it here. Kinda sad they can't see any other way.

men insist it was their role. they have to do it. and everything else refusing to move from that line of paying for a date.

i always refused when i was dating for like four reasons. and i always had a fight on my hands with men demanding to pay, and me saying.... k, no date. that simple

And I think you are dramatically overstating your understanding of male attraction. What attracts a male to a female, and somehow devolving that into "man bad/woman enlightened" just doesn't work in 2013. Educated women are leaving the workforce in droves to stay home, have kids, and embrace more traditional gender roles. Let me be clear. Not traditional gender roles ala 1940's, but a 2013 reality more aligned to biological and evolutionary drives in a technologically driven society.

I personally believe that while not willing to openly admit it in a culture of shame and derision, women don't want 60's feminism and they are opting out for something that pushes the pendulum back towards the middle.

Of course I'm sure even mentioning this on DU with its demographics will be seen as some slight to both the collective and individual females who engage, and I am ready for any shaming attacks or exclusion from the discussion that having a centrist gender position entails.

Boom, that just happened.

and the man bad/ woman enlightened thing? Kind of silly to claim anyone here said that.
But the rest of your post is filled with silly assumptions and outdated stereotypes as well, so there you go.

to have a parent at home. more men are the ones choosing to stay at home and do that job. and women are the sole supporters. it is not about "biological and evolutionary drives". it is about what is best for a family

Pure poppycock.

I expected people to be treated equally, and I expected that equality was the direction things were moving. Definitely, that didn't turn out to be the case. Perhaps I was in the minority then, but it didn't seem like it.

As far as the OP's questions, I've wondered the same thing. Why do so many women adopt the subordinate role, choose men who put them and keep them in the subordinate role?

I know why so many men take the dominant role, and make relationships all about dominance and submission; that makes things easy for them and its a rush to to "top dog" in one's relationship and household, even if the rest of the world ignores you. From about the age of two male egos are puffed up by societal expectations, and there's a sort of testosterone-high associated with dominant male fantasies. Generally life doesn't cooperate in giving these any public place, so the choice is to either "grow up and get real" about oneself, or find some private way to fuel the illusion. Traditional marriage roles are structured, in a way, specifically to fuel and shelter these juvenile illusions.

I can see why guys do it, but why women do it is less clear. I suppose it may be easier to be dominated than to think for oneself, and easy to descend into a partial-role in society, where there are few expectations, and security is the reward...I couldn't do it (though I am male), and I have to say it is refreshing and nice to find any woman who is strong, intelligent, competent, and independent. My aunts are, and many women from that generation. Very few from my generation, and the high school kids I see are mostly throwbacks now, as far as that goes.

Period. And throughout history, men have held wealth and women were dependent financially on men. Only recently have women had financial agency with any reliability under the law. There is a difference between accepting something and being forced or constrained by something. The women who won suffrage did so at great personal cost, including suffering violence at the hands of men. Men in positions of power are still fighting to keep women constrained financially and politically. I think you should to talk so some women and learn that sometimes what seems obvious to you most likely is not the case.

and that it has anything to do with feminists, or most women. their are idiots, sellouts and cruelly selfish people of all races and genders. always have been, always will be.

I represent an indigent mother whose five children were removed from her custody by Child Protection because her husband was abusing them and she did "nothing to protect her children" and didn't flee her abuser. And that was the basis to terminate her parental rights and have her children adopted. What is not taken into account is that my client was suffering from the emotional, psychological, and financial control of her husband. And she had no place to seek escape or money to support herself and her children. Patriarchy demanded that she be dependent upon her husband and at the same time, it blamed her for surrendering to that reality.

You might as well ask "Why do people passively accept the idea of a god?" or "why do people passively accept the idea of a constitutional republic?". When that's the culture they grow up in, and the idea is reinforced by the people around them every day, people will accept it as normal. That's just how humans operate. Eventually you get a bright thinker capable of seeing a different path and convincing others to go along with it, and then a new normal is created. We just happen to be in the transition phase between one normal and another, that's all. There's still a lot of people clinging to their conditioning, and some of them are women.

I don't think "pro-rape" is the best possible term, since they're not really in favor of widespread rape as a social norm. They accept it (incorrectly) as an inevitable response to and/or appropriate punishment for certain types of behavior, but that's not the same thing.

Cultural change takes time and effort. Give it some.

And they are apolitical. So they live as best they can but leave it to others to improve things.