Gender role reversal

[gzusfrk]

I don't doubt it. The real question is, "Why?"

well since I got laid off and my wife did'nt, house work SUCKS.

 

[Buttons*]

Just to be clear, there weren't problems with that scenario. The reason he is my ex has nothing to do with who worked and who stayed home.

I'm sorry then, that was ignorant of me to say.

You do realize that men have always had the "upperhand" in the work force in our society right? That there have never been as many women in the workforce as men even though we outnumber men? That, we even still make less than men on the whole for the same type of work?

I'm not stupid I do realize all those things. It just doesn't bother me like it bothers most people. I think women are JUST as capable of men for jobs, and in some cases, even MORE capable. The pay cuts on women are not right and not equal. I don't think the solution is to pay women 30% more from now on and fire a ton of men. It's not going to even out the situation, and it will make quite a few men very angry.

Think about it, how many things to men have that are theirs? There are no men's universities because it's sexist. But there are all female universities. There are no all male gyms because it's sexist. But there are all female gyms. I don't think that's equality. Here's the thing though, I don't think I'd want absolute equality, because I like having things that are my own. I like being able to go into an all female gym and work out.

Do we want to punish today's man (who's really getting more of a wuss by the minute) for the crimes of men in the whole of human existence? That's not fair, and it's not equal.

The shift towards women being more of a driving force in the workplace can only help to equal things out. and perhaps the shift towards more men having to work in jobs usually classified as "women's" jobs and/or staying home raising children might just make more men appreciate the work women do and realize that certain jobs aren't just for men and aren't just for women and they might work harder to ensure more equality in the workplace and home as well.

It could, but as much as I like the idea of equality, I think some things DO need structure, and base equality does not leave room for structure in things like the home.

Say my boyfriend and I have kids together. Say there is no "head" of the house. (Whether it's male or female is irrelevant - speaking from the perspective of one who's mother acted as both father and mother and then gave up entirely.) I have noticed from my personal experience that not having a man around to help my brothers grow into men has not helped make them men. They desperately need that male influence in their lives, or else they end up like my brothers are now - following in Dad's footsteps - drinking themselves silly. It has not helped their self esteem. Having to hear "men are ********" all the time from my mother is not a fair way to raise boys or girls - but that's what we got, because it was somehow "equal" treatment for what my Dad did to her. Sure it's equal, but is it fair? No.

 

[Ringer]

I don't doubt it. The real question is, "Why?"

I could give you my version of what I think the answer is but that would be from a biblical perspective.

 

[Nanda]

I could give you my version of what I think the answer is but that would be from a biblical perspective.

Heh... Yeah, that arguement's not gonna fly with me.

 

[Ringer]

Heh... Yeah, that arguement's not gonna fly with me.

It's probably not the one you're thinking (not in the NT) but I'll refrain from it anyway.

 

[Nanda]

It's probably not the one you're thinking (not in the NT) but I'll refrain from it anyway.

Well, if it makes you feel better, almost any arguement you make suggesting to me that men need to be one way and women need to be another isn't going to fly with me, biblical or not.

 

[Buttons*]

Well, if it makes you feel better, almost any arguement you make suggesting to me that men need to be one way and women need to be another isn't going to fly with me, biblical or not.

Even in the context of an atheistic science like Anthropology or Sociology?

 

[Nanda]

Even in the context of an atheistic science like Anthropology or Sociology?

I've yet to hear a compelling arguement from either source that would support the notion that I have to stay at home and wash socks while my husband goes out and earns all our money. If you've got one, I'm all ears. Thing is, I'm not denying that there are differences between men and women - there are - but none of our differences are reason enough to keep a man from becoming a nurse or a woman from becoming a CEO.

 

[Draka]

I'm sorry then, that was ignorant of me to say.

I'm not stupid I do realize all those things. It just doesn't bother me like it bothers most people. I think women are JUST as capable of men for jobs, and in some cases, even MORE capable. The pay cuts on women are not right and not equal. I don't think the solution is to pay women 30% more from now on and fire a ton of men. It's not going to even out the situation, and it will make quite a few men very angry.

Think about it, how many things to men have that are theirs? There are no men's universities because it's sexist. But there are all female universities. There are no all male gyms because it's sexist. But there are all female gyms. I don't think that's equality. Here's the thing though, I don't think I'd want absolute equality, because I like having things that are my own. I like being able to go into an all female gym and work out.

Do we want to punish today's man (who's really getting more of a wuss by the minute) for the crimes of men in the whole of human existence? That's not fair, and it's not equal.

It could, but as much as I like the idea of equality, I think some things DO need structure, and base equality does not leave room for structure in things like the home.

Say my boyfriend and I have kids together. Say there is no "head" of the house. (Whether it's male or female is irrelevant - speaking from the perspective of one who's mother acted as both father and mother and then gave up entirely.) I have noticed from my personal experience that not having a man around to help my brothers grow into men has not helped make them men. They desperately need that male influence in their lives, or else they end up like my brothers are now - following in Dad's footsteps - drinking themselves silly. It has not helped their self esteem. Having to hear "men are ********" all the time from my mother is not a fair way to raise boys or girls - but that's what we got, because it was somehow "equal" treatment for what my Dad did to her. Sure it's equal, but is it fair? No.

Buttons, no one is saying anything about punishing men. No one is saying anything about abuse. No one is saying anything that seems remotely connected to what you are saying. The simple fact being presented here is that due to the economy there are massive loss of jobs. A lot of those jobs are in fields where mostly men work, factory work accounts for a lot of it. Thereby leaving some men either turning towards jobs such as nursing (in which there is actually a shortage of people) or deciding to stay home and take care of kids and house while the woman becomes the sole breadwinner.

It is this "gender role reversal" that is being discussed here. I fail to see how a guy being a SAHD or working as a nurse or secretary or anything "wusses" them out. It's EXACTLY that line of thinking that degrades women and the "normal" things we do in the first place. As if "women's work" is somehow degrading for a man to do.

My point in this is that if men start to have to become accustomed to working in such jobs or in the home, then perhaps the realization that they are not just "women's work" will hit home and overall pay and respect for women will go up. The balance between the sexes will be more balanced when it is truly realized that a woman can be just as successful as a provider as a man and a man can be just as much a nurturer as a woman. Isn't that what gender equality is all about anyway?

 

[Comicaze247]

Well, men have bigger, and more fragile egos than women do. So not being the "breadwinner" of the house surely isn't helping their self-esteem. I know I felt useless without a job, regardless of whether or not I was being the "breadwinner." If anything, I'd think it would just start ruining some relationships because of men being jealous of their wives/girlfriends and feeling sorry for themselves. Eventually, I think it would balance out, but not for a looooong time.

 

[Buttons*]

I've yet to hear a compelling arguement from either source that would support the notion that I have to stay at home and wash socks while my husband goes out and earns all our money. If you've got one, I'm all ears. Thing is, I'm not denying that there are differences between men and women - there are - but none of our differences are reason enough to keep a man from becoming a nurse or a woman from becoming a CEO.

I agree with you. But if one takes the time to look at some Anthropology, the strongest civilizations had a good hold on what the "family" was - wrong or right - it kept people alive. No, women don't HAVE to pick berries and stay by the fire having babies. No, men don't HAVE to hunt and perform in battle when their civilization is compromised. But in my opinion, I think that there's something to a traditional family because it keeps some semblance of balance.

I don't mean women were born to live in the kitchen pregnant - if I believed that, I wouldn't be going to University. But on the other hand, I think that there is something to be said for a family who has a head of the house and bread winner - divided however the family chooses. It does make more sense to have the mother of a child with the child until it's at least 1 year old - but that's because I also have a strong concept of bonding. To each their own, but the kids I know who have both parents working generally were more emo than your average kid who had someone who was there for them to listen to their problems.

I'm really glad that Mom was there (when my parents were still together) so I had someone to cry to when kids were making fun of me, and I think it was good that she was around the house in the evenings. I wish Dad could have been there, but he was too busy getting drunk. The strongest families are the ones who have structure, love, and closeness. It's hard to do that when both parents are at work. I think it's also hard to be a male and relate to children's emotions because some men aren't completely empathetic.

I've seen it first hand. The most level families with the happiest kids are the ones who have some kind of structure. But that's only my observation.

 

[Buttons*]

Buttons, no one is saying anything about punishing men. No one is saying anything about abuse. No one is saying anything that seems remotely connected to what you are saying. The simple fact being presented here is that due to the economy there are massive loss of jobs. A lot of those jobs are in fields where mostly men work, factory work accounts for a lot of it. Thereby leaving some men either turning towards jobs such as nursing (in which there is actually a shortage of people) or deciding to stay home and take care of kids and house while the woman becomes the sole breadwinner.

And I seem to be the only one who feels that's not necessarily a good thing.

It is this "gender role reversal" that is being discussed here. I fail to see how a guy being a SAHD or working as a nurse or secretary or anything "wusses" them out. It's EXACTLY that line of thinking that degrades women and the "normal" things we do in the first place. As if "women's work" is somehow degrading for a man to do.

Well since that's not what I said or what I meant....

Anyway, I think that a man can happily do a woman's job, and many do! I was referring to men staying at home and doing nothing all day. Not having a job that a woman does.... *sheeeesh*

My point in this is that if men start to have to become accustomed to working in such jobs or in the home, then perhaps the realization that they are not just "women's work" will hit home and overall pay and respect for women will go up. The balance between the sexes will be more balanced when it is truly realized that a woman can be just as successful as a provider as a man and a man can be just as much a nurturer as a woman. Isn't that what gender equality is all about anyway?

It may... but it's not certain. I think that men and women treat children, jobs, and homes differently. ChrisP and I don't do the exact same things to do the same job. I can do housework faster (and throw away less important stuff.) and he can fix things better than I can. I don't feel that I'm less than him in any way, shape, or form because we do things differently. I'm happy to celebrate our differences. But the thing is, if I wanted to be with a woman, I would, but I want to be with a man.

And to me, it's natural and healthy for men to want to provide for their families. Any job, even a stereotypical "woman's" job would fit that bill. I wouldn't care if he were a nurse or a secretary, because the important thing is that he wants to provide for himself and make a decent living. But there's no way that he and I would be able to do the same job in the same way. I couldn't handle the stress of being the only person to provide. I couldn't handle the stress of the office he's in now. He couldn't handle my future career. I'm willing to bet that he'll also have a hard time reaching kids on the same level that "mommy" would. That's why he would be "daddy" and I would be "mommy" if we ever did spawn. I'm not up for total equality if it means that I don't get to be a "mommy." And that I have to be both mommy and daddy just because we're all capable of doing things well equally in different ways.

 

[Nanda]

Anyway, I think that a man can happily do a woman's job, and many do! I was referring to men staying at home and doing nothing all day. Not having a job that a woman does.... *sheeeesh*

That's not what this thread is about, though - it was never about men sitting at home and doing nothing, it was about men taking jobs that aren't considered "manly" and women who have bring home the primary income. I'm not sure how this idea of men sitting at home and doing nothing even became part of the arguement, and I really don't understand where this idea of equating stay-at-home parent with sitting around doing nothing all day comes from. Seems like one big strawman to me.

 

[Buttons*]

That's not what this thread is about, though - it was never about men sitting at home and doing nothing, it was about men taking jobs that aren't considered "manly" and women who have bring home the primary income. I'm not sure how this idea of men sitting at home and doing nothing even became part of the arguement, and I really don't understand where this idea of equating stay-at-home parent with sitting around doing nothing all day comes from. Seems like one big strawman to me.

If you disagree of course my argument is going to seem like a strawman. The reason I bring this up is because it seemed to me that many on here just want to put men in their place instead of find balance. I could be wrong.

If it really is about men taking stereotypical "women's" jobs, than there's no issue. The point I saw Draka make is that it would be good if men were out of their traditional jobs so it could finally be even for women. I disagree with that.

I'm not equating being a stay at home parent with being lazy. If ChrisP and I were married right now, and he was unemployed, and I had to be the one to bring home the bacon, he wouldn't do anything around the house. We have no children. He doesn't like cleaning all too often. Fair enough, he doesn't have to if he has a job. But he shouldn't be forced into it because he's been laid off.

I, for one, think the loss of jobs for men is a bad thing in general, and not a platform for women to strut their stuff... but maybe I'm too sympathetic to men in general. It seems arrogant, and not the way to preach equality.

 

[Nanda]

To each their own, but the kids I know who have both parents working generally were more emo than your average kid who had someone who was there for them to listen to their problems.

And my point is, that person can just as easily be dad.

The strongest families are the ones who have structure, love, and closeness.

Yes. But there's not set structure that everyone has to follow to achieve that.

It's hard to do that when both parents are at work. I think it's also hard to be a male and relate to children's emotions because some men aren't completely empathetic.

Uh... I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I think a lot of fathers would disagree with you, too.

I've seen it first hand. The most level families with the happiest kids are the ones who have some kind of structure. But that's only my observation.

And I've seen first hand how a woman can be the breadwinner, a father can run the home, and the kids can come out as happy and well-adjusted as any one else's. My father taught me how to do every domestic thing I know how to do, and I not only respect him, but he's probably my favorite person in the entire world.

 

[Nanda]

If it really is about men taking stereotypical "women's" jobs, than there's no issue. The point I saw Draka make is that it would be good if men were out of their traditional jobs so it could finally be even for women. I disagree with that.

I, for one, think the loss of jobs for men is a bad thing in general, and not a platform for women to strut their stuff... but maybe I'm too sympathetic to men in general. It seems arrogant, and not the way to preach equality.

I think you're missing the point - she wasn't saying it was good that men lose their jobs because that makes things more equal, she was saying that it's probably good that men are forced to take more jobs that are stereotypically considered to be "women's work," because then they can see how much work actually goes into such jobs, gain a newfound appreciation for them, and that helps us move closer to gender equality.

 

[Nanda]

The reason I bring this up is because it seemed to me that many on here just want to put men in their place instead of find balance. I could be wrong.

You're very wrong. No one said that at all. Unless you're equating being a nurse or a stay at home parent as "putting men in their place."

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Yahoo!

Since the vast amount of jobs being lost in this economy are those held by men it appears that classic roles are being changed up.

Do you feel that this is a good thing or bad thing? Should it make a difference if the woman is the main breadwinner in the home and the man the homemaker or in a job usually held by women? Do you think this is an advancement out of a bad situation or a setback all around?

What we are seeing here is just a solidification of the dual income society. Gender will not have a specific role in the work place as both members of a family will be required to work in order to support the family. Originally, women were seen as fitting a certian role within the workplace due to the fact that there weren't that many in it. As the number of women in the workplace increases and the idiots who want to keep them out die off, the workplace gender roles will disappear.

Unfortunately, this has an adverse affect on families. Since both mother and father must work to support the family, the children are being raised by strangers who care little for their development or well being. I support women having the choice to join the workforce but I feel we are moving to a point where they have no choice, they must join the workforce to be able to afford to live. It's a shame.

 

[Draka]

I think you're missing the point - she wasn't saying it was good that men lose their jobs because that makes things more equal, she was saying that it's probably good that men are forced to take more jobs that are stereotypically considered to be "women's work," because then they can see how much work actually goes into such jobs, gain a newfound appreciation for them, and that helps us move closer to gender equality.

Yes, thank you. I was never saying that men losing jobs was a good thing. I was saying that since they already ARE losing their jobs the fact that some men are going to work in arenas that were always typically described as "women's work" might make more men realize that this work is just as valid as theirs. A few women work in "male jobs" and are usually discounted as not as good just by default of not having a penis. Call me idealistic, but I'm hoping the fact that men have to live with that same consideration, which it appears by Buttons own stance to be in full effect in some people, that that attitude will change. Take it from someone that has spent most of her life until recently in "men's jobs".

 

[Draka]

What we are seeing here is just a solidification of the dual income society. Gender will not have a specific role in the work place as both members of a family will be required to work in order to support the family. Originally, women were seen as fitting a certian role within the workplace due to the fact that there weren't that many in it. As the number of women in the workplace increases and the idiots who want to keep them out die off, the workplace gender roles will disappear.

Unfortunately, this has an adverse affect on families. Since both mother and father must work to support the family, the children are being raised by strangers who care little for their development or well being. I support women having the choice to join the workforce but I feel we are moving to a point where they have no choice, they must join the workforce to be able to afford to live. It's a shame.

We've been a society that has had the dual income family for a while now. I don't know that that is really what is changing here. More that the types of jobs and the levels of incomes for particular parties seem to be changing.